How many agree with Stem Cell Research?

[Tab]

For those who don't know anything about Stem Cells check out the Wikipedia link.

Stem Cells

If you're unaware of the current issues check out the following links...

Korea makes huge leap in Stem Cell Research

Bush Condemns Korea's Stem Cell Advances...

Now, is this a morale practice? Since we don't know when a human life begins how do we know we aren't killing living humans? *cough* *cough*

CycloWizard you can chime in

 

[Amplifier]

For it.

 

[Ozoned]

And for those that are unaware of how the forum works, search for the other 4 or 5 current threads on the subject.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Tab
For those who don't know anything about Stem Cells check out the Wikipedia link.

Stem Cells

If you're unaware of the current issues check out the following links...

Korea makes huge leap in Stem Cell Research

Bush Condemns Korea's Stem Cell Advances...

Now, is this a morale practice? Since we don't know when a human life begins how do we know we aren't killing living humans? *cough* *cough*

CycloWizard you can chime in

He has an alarm on his computer that goes off when the words "abortion" or "stem cell" gets used on this forum.

:laugh:

 

[CellarDoor]

Absolutely for it! Voted for it here in California too.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: mribnik1
Absolutely for it! Voted for it here in California too.

Yup, me too.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
And for those that are unaware of how the forum works, search for the other 4 or 5 current threads on the subject.

I didn't know someone had a poll on the subject...

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Tab
For those who don't know anything about Stem Cells check out the Wikipedia link.

Stem Cells

If you're unaware of the current issues check out the following links...

Korea makes huge leap in Stem Cell Research

Bush Condemns Korea's Stem Cell Advances...

Now, is this a morale practice? Since we don't know when a human life begins how do we know we aren't killing living humans? *cough* *cough*

CycloWizard you can chime in

He has an alarm on his computer that goes off when the words "abortion" or "stem cell" gets used on this forum.

:laugh:

How'd you know?

 

[glenn1]

How about adding the Libertarian answer, the only one with a constitutional basis.

"The federal government has no Constitutional authority to allocate money to research of this type."

I don't care if you do stem cell research or not, I have no problem with it and wish you well with it. That said, I'll be damned if you're going to do it with federal tax dollars. If you want to use your state treasury funds for it be my guest.

 

[Kadarin]

I am completely in favor of stem cell research, and believe the government should indeed fund it. It's a crime to allow fanatical religious fruitcakes and nutjobs to get in the way of this.

 

[glenn1]

It's a crime to allow fanatical religious fruitcakes and nutjobs to get in the way of this.

So now those of us who think you should spend your own goddamn money on this if you think it's such a great idea are nutjobs? People like you scare the hell out of me, the ones who think that the government is there to provide to play Santa Claus to your pet ideas.

 

[Amplifier]

Originally posted by: glenn1

It's a crime to allow fanatical religious fruitcakes and nutjobs to get in the way of this.

So now those of us who think you should spend your own goddamn money on this if you think it's such a great idea are nutjobs? People like you scare the hell out of me, the ones who think that the government is there to provide to play Santa Claus to your pet ideas.

If the US falls behind in an area as important as stem cell research it's going to hurt us. Maybe not now, but 20 years from now. The medicine created via stem cell research has significant economic value and some country is going to take advantage of it whether we do or not.

Since stem cell research will happen regardless of our restrictions, we might as well lift them so America's can be the ones profiting.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: glenn1

It's a crime to allow fanatical religious fruitcakes and nutjobs to get in the way of this.

So now those of us who think you should spend your own goddamn money on this if you think it's such a great idea are nutjobs? People like you scare the hell out of me, the ones who think that the government is there to provide to play Santa Claus to your pet ideas.

LOL. What a joke.

Cost of military in 2005: $420,000,000,000.00
Cost of war in Iraq: $172,000,000,000.00
Cost of science research in 2005: $5,473,000,000.00

Dismissing $5 billion expenditure on cutting-edge biotech & all of its positive economic impacts as pet projects while doubtlessly supporting 107x as much on a completely misdirected war against fictional threats and non-existent enemies: priceless.

 

[Steeplerot]

But, but, what if we didn't have to wear out like cheap plastic toys, what would the motivation be to give churches our money and follow their outdated view of life and death and their big mean fairy in the sky?

It is freedom that they fear, freedom from this mortal coil and the guilt sanctioned emotional slavery and the power it brings the elite few.
With every egg in a woman there is the dna to sustain life almost indefinatly for whole familys.
Eggs that are free. They can not hold that above your head and control you with it.
Why have children? Why have a god? Why not live forever and work out our issues with one another.

We all know why. It leaves them helpless, those who are addicted to a darker drug then anything synthesized, power.

Good luck getting the superstitious nutjobs to let it go for an instant.

This could be the biggest thing for the human race since we climbed up out of the swamps.

 

[glenn1]

If the US falls behind in an area as important as stem cell research it's going to hurt us. Maybe not now, but 20 years from now. The medicine created via stem cell research has significant economic value and some country is going to take advantage of it whether we do or not.

Since stem cell research will happen regardless of our restrictions, we might as well lift them so America's can be the ones profiting.

Your line of reasoning contradicts itself. If it's that profitable, a Merck or Pfizer will pursue it, and we won't need to have federal funding. If it won't be profitable, they won't. Those companies spend billions on R&D annually, and have people making huge salaries to determine whether a particular line of research will produce a profit over the hurdle costs the company sets.

I swear, some people obviously just enjoy paying higher taxes. That's the only possible explanation I can see why they are so keen to have the federal government play the role of a venture capitalist.

 

[glenn1]

But, but, what if we didn't have to wear out like cheap plastic toys, what would the motivation be to give churches our money and follow their outdated view of life and death and their big mean fairy in the sky?

It is freedom that they fear, freedom from this mortal coil and the guilt sanctioned emotional slavery and the power it brings the elite few.
With every egg in a woman there is the dna to sustain life almost indefinatly for whole familys.
Eggs that are free. They can not hold that above your head and control you with it.
Why have children? Why have a god? Why not live forever and work out our issues with one another.

We all know why. It leaves them helpless, those who are addicted to a darker drug then anything synthesized, power.

Good luck getting the superstitious nutjobs to let it go for an instant.

This could be the biggest thing for the human race since we climbed up out of the swamps.

Nice rant, but I have not a clue what the hell you're talking about.

And I'm not very religious, and even I find the idea of human immortality as both impossible and repellent.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: glenn1

If the US falls behind in an area as important as stem cell research it's going to hurt us. Maybe not now, but 20 years from now. The medicine created via stem cell research has significant economic value and some country is going to take advantage of it whether we do or not.

Since stem cell research will happen regardless of our restrictions, we might as well lift them so America's can be the ones profiting.

Your line of reasoning contradicts itself. If it's that profitable, a Merck or Pfizer will pursue it, and we won't need to have federal funding. If it won't be profitable, they won't. Those companies spend billions on R&D annually, and have people making huge salaries to determine whether a particular line of research will produce a profit over the hurdle costs the company sets.

I swear, some people obviously just enjoy paying higher taxes. That's the only possible explanation I can see why they are so keen to have the federal government play the role of a venture capitalist.

I've bolded the relevant counter-point and will add cost of liability with bleeding edge technology to invalidate your first point, see my previous post in this thread for a counter to your second.

 

[glenn1]

I've bolded the relevant counter-point and will add cost of liability with bleeding edge technology to invalidate your first point, see my previous post in this thread for a counter to your second.

So basically your counter-point is that even though big pharma won't be able to meet hurdle rates and will thus not pursue the project, that it has such economic benefit that the federal government should do it regardless of costs and despite the fact that there is no Constitutional authority to do it in the first place. Brilliant, fvcking brilliant. You're fired as my financial advisor.

 

[glenn1]

see my previous post in this thread for a counter to your second.

Your second point isn't a counter, it's a diversion. Defense spending is expressly authorized in the Constitution as an allowable expenditure of funds, pharmacology research is not. The amounts spent are completely immaterial. We could spend twice as much on the millitary and that would be Constitutionally permissable, whereas spending a dime on a project like this (or even one of such unarguable value as curing the common cold) would not be.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: glenn1

But, but, what if we didn't have to wear out like cheap plastic toys, what would the motivation be to give churches our money and follow their outdated view of life and death and their big mean fairy in the sky?

It is freedom that they fear, freedom from this mortal coil and the guilt sanctioned emotional slavery and the power it brings the elite few.
With every egg in a woman there is the dna to sustain life almost indefinatly for whole familys.
Eggs that are free. They can not hold that above your head and control you with it.
Why have children? Why have a god? Why not live forever and work out our issues with one another.

We all know why. It leaves them helpless, those who are addicted to a darker drug then anything synthesized, power.

Good luck getting the superstitious nutjobs to let it go for an instant.

This could be the biggest thing for the human race since we climbed up out of the swamps.

Nice rant, but I have not a clue what the hell you're talking about.

And I'm not very religious, and even I find the idea of human immortality as both impossible and repellent.

Figures, More worried about pinching pennies.
Do us a favor, and keep that view of immortality, kthx
I sure know I have plenty to do, see and live for in this body that would take far longer then some paltry 90 years or so.
Let the worms consume my old organs, but if I can get a new one geneticlly enhanced at some point in our future of science that is defect free, why not?

That sure is worth far more of my taxmoney then all the stupid distractions of the petty squabbling backwards people more obsessed with killing one another and blowing up what little we have on planet earth.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: glenn1
So now those of us who think you should spend your own goddamn money on this if you think it's such a great idea are nutjobs?

You bet I do. Everyone's entitled to their own beliefs, but no one is entitled to their own facts. To put it succinctly, Is is.

Anyone who rejects serious scientific exploration of ways to relieve human suffering because they're afraid the knowledge would raise questions about their out of date myth and mythology doesn't have a clue about how the planet works. Such people should NOT be in charge of dictating where public money is spent for the purpose.

People like you scare the hell out of me...

Scaring the hell out of you is a good start, although I wish there were a gentler way. Then we can move onto helping you get away from the other silly myths.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: glenn1

It's a crime to allow fanatical religious fruitcakes and nutjobs to get in the way of this.

People like you scare the hell out of me ...

Good. I'm glad you're scared.

Stem cell research is for the good of the human race, and having the federal government help fund university research and whatnot contributes to human knowledge as a whole. Perhaps you're prefer that religious superstition and fanaticism both contribute toward the United States losing its technological leadership in the world?

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: glenn1

see my previous post in this thread for a counter to your second.

Your second point isn't a counter, it's a diversion. Defense spending is expressly authorized in the Constitution as an allowable expenditure of funds, pharmacology research is not. The amounts spent are completely immaterial. We could spend twice as much on the millitary and that would be Constitutionally permissable, whereas spending a dime on a project like this (or even one of such unarguable value as curing the common cold) would not be.

I get it, you are a libertarian. You believe in almost no Federal government at all, except for national defense. But here is what I don?t get, what about all the other things that the government pays for (i.e. roads, hospitals, police, fire, teachers, Federal Police (FBI, US Marshals), etc.) the constitution does not specifically say any of those are allowed, so should the government shut down the FBI?

Oh wait, I know, the belief is that in a purely capitalistic environment, corporations would provide all the above and if you did not like what they were providing you would go to their competitor to get it. Here is the problem with that idea, what if there is no competition and you had no where else to turn? How do you get the corporation that is now running the FBI, and the Fire department to give a crap about what you think?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: glenn1

I've bolded the relevant counter-point and will add cost of liability with bleeding edge technology to invalidate your first point, see my previous post in this thread for a counter to your second.

So basically your counter-point is that even though big pharma won't be able to meet hurdle rates and will thus not pursue the project, that it has such economic benefit that the federal government should do it regardless of costs and despite the fact that there is no Constitutional authority to do it in the first place. Brilliant, fvcking brilliant. You're fired as my financial advisor.

My counterpoint is that pharmaceutical corporations have one thing in mind at all times: the bottom line. Why would a company be willing to invest billions of dollars into a technology that might (or might not) recoup the investment? Do you really think American pharmaceutical companies have the vision or solvency to dump billions into technology that won't pay off for 20 or more years?

Originally posted by: glenn1

see my previous post in this thread for a counter to your second.

Your second point isn't a counter, it's a diversion. Defense spending is expressly authorized in the Constitution as an allowable expenditure of funds, pharmacology research is not. The amounts spent are completely immaterial. We could spend twice as much on the millitary and that would be Constitutionally permissable, whereas spending a dime on a project like this (or even one of such unarguable value as curing the common cold) would not be.

Defense spending is expressly authorized in the Constitution, but little else the federal government spends money on anymore is, like education, healthcare, social security, etc. But I bet you can do just as good a job of educating your children as a professor, provide your family with healthcare every bit as well as a physician, and will have no need to collect Social Security when you retire.

Like the poster above me points out, it seems that you're a libertarian. Go live in a compound out west and let the world pass you by. We won't bother you, and maybe we'll even let you drive on the roads funded by the unconstitutional Department of Transportation, and will probably provide you with healthcare courtesy of the unconstitutional Department of HHS.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: glenn1

If the US falls behind in an area as important as stem cell research it's going to hurt us. Maybe not now, but 20 years from now. The medicine created via stem cell research has significant economic value and some country is going to take advantage of it whether we do or not.

Since stem cell research will happen regardless of our restrictions, we might as well lift them so America's can be the ones profiting.

Your line of reasoning contradicts itself. If it's that profitable, a Merck or Pfizer will pursue it, and we won't need to have federal funding. If it won't be profitable, they won't. Those companies spend billions on R&D annually, and have people making huge salaries to determine whether a particular line of research will produce a profit over the hurdle costs the company sets.

I swear, some people obviously just enjoy paying higher taxes. That's the only possible explanation I can see why they are so keen to have the federal government play the role of a venture capitalist.

No, they won't. You've a got a extremely crude understanding of goverment funding. Stem Cell Research is massive and so is goverment funding. There are already other limits on Stem Cell Research in the United States, which are stupid. Large companies aren't going to do something that is going to cost that much when other companies in other contries already have goverment support and are already very much ahead of us. The military doesn't make any money why should we have a military? Oh wait! It protects us! We should have money put into Stem Cell Research.