I understand what you are saying Extremestan, but I'm just not sure it applies to this case...
People knew what they were getting when they elected Bush. This wasn't a surprise, just a disapointment for many. I don't fault him for sticking to what he said he was going to do, I do wish he saw things my way, or that we had elected someone else...
As for the federal state local difference, it seems today that the federal government is taking more and more action that used to be left to the states. We already have the 14th amendment, and the full faith and credit clause, which means a large degree, there are things that states have no control over. Funding is something that can vary locality to locality, and I have already mentioned how state funding as well as private funding can be used to back this science up. federal funding would have helped the research, but this does help avoid the problem of some wanting to fund, and others not.
Still, the people through their elected representatives, and 70 percent of the public as a whole, support federal funded research. I understand it is a sensitive subject, but just because people might strongly be against it, doesn't mean you should always not do it. after all, We are at war in Iraq, the majority does not want us to be there, but we still do what some consider murder. People are forced to support it over their current moral beliefs. It seems to me you can have two different systems in place:
1. Just let everyone vote, and majority/politically savvy minority rules, no need for arguement or reason, just brute political force. It is what is going on here.
2. Use reason, common sense, and sound arguements, and go with the best side. Even if there is large or vocal dissent, unless they can present an arguement beyond "I just don't like it", it doesn't count.
I understand what you are saying Extremestan, but I'm just not sure it applies to this case...
People knew what they were getting when they elected Bush. This wasn't a surprise, just a disapointment for many. I don't fault him for sticking to what he said he was going to do, I do wish he saw things my way, or that we had elected someone else...
As for the federal state local difference, it seems today that the federal government is taking more and more action that used to be left to the states. We already have the 14th amendment, and the full faith and credit clause, which means a large degree, there are things that states have no control over. Funding is something that can vary locality to locality, and I have already mentioned how state funding as well as private funding can be used to back this science up. federal funding would have helped the research, but this does help avoid the problem of some wanting to fund, and others not.
Still, the people through their elected representatives, and 70 percent of the public as a whole, support federal funded research. I understand it is a sensitive subject, but just because people might strongly be against it, doesn't mean you should always not do it. after all, We are at war in Iraq, the majority does not want us to be there, but we still do what some consider murder. People are forced to support it over their current moral beliefs. It seems to me you can have two different systems in place:
1. Just let everyone vote, and majority/politically savvy minority rules, no need for arguement or reason, just brute political force. It is what is going on here.
2. Use reason, common sense, and sound arguements, and go with the best side. Even if there is large or vocal dissent, unless they can present an arguement beyond "I just don't like it", it doesn't count.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure "conception" happens when the sperm meets the egg. Not when the lonely preteen masturbates.
Everyday millions of people masterbate - guys waste their sperm cells and they die off.
Every month every woman on the planet menstrates, those eggs die off.
Put them together and what do you get? Free stem cells that were never intended to be human children.
BIBIDY BOPIDY BOOP!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This member has been found guilty of ripping a number of users on MTGSalvation. As a result he has been banned on this site and all his positive feedback has been removed. The MTGSalvation Staff wants to strongly encourage you NOT to trade with this member ever again in whatever situation might come up.
Spread the word.
In other words, using federal grants to support Indian basket weaving may anger some people. Tough luck, we all have to deal with our money being used for things we don't agree with. But supporting the murder of millions of human lives? To many people, that's a whole different ball game.
I'm sorry to do this, but:
War in Iraq. Torturing people to death. Capital punishment.
And if you are the President of the United States, the most powerful political figure in the country, and you are going to define the situation under which you don't veto this bill as leading to the murder of millions of Americans, how can you not apply that definition universally? If this is such a fundamental issue of morality that you can't ask even a minority of Americans to financially support it, how can you let it slide for IVF? Or abortion, for that matter?
EDIT: Hardcore 'nathed. But to add a little bit more, I generally agree with 'Stan's thinking on "universal application." The vigilantism analogy throws it off a bit, however, since it's not your moral duty to personally stop serial killers, either. However, when you are "The Decider," it's your job to make policy decisions like these, and they should be consistent, all things being equal. If doing research that requires the destruction of embryos that could grow up to be press-conference babies is tantamount to using the body parts of those children, why does it matter if the embryo was destroyed before or after Aug 9, 2001? I can see the logic in not wanting to "create life to destroy it," but that is where the inconsistencies with IVF come in.
Jay-C: The issue isn't if they were intended to be human children, its that certain religious people believe that life starts at conception, and the only way to get the kind of stem cells they want to research is to kill the embryos. Thats why they think of it as murder. I personally believe that even if you buy into that view (I don't, but I understand why others do) you can make the case an analogy to organ donation. To donate organs, you must have a person who is alive, but brain dead. Family members can make the decision, at that point, to give the organs up or not. In the case of embryos that are about to be discarded, that no one will adopt, and are about to expire anyway, it seems to be to be a choice of giving organs right before someone would die. Many would object to this characterization, but I welcome their views on why this doesn't relate.
Vote for the Democrats in 06 and 08.
Yeah, they aren't great either, but there will be no snowflake baby children of the corn scene in the Oval Office with them, I promise.
Yeah! Instead we get dirty interns and adultrous Presidents who lie in court! YAY!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig by Sash of deviantART FEAR THE SPEAR ARSENAL F.C.
USA
I love how this conversation went from the embyonic-personhood to The Clenis(tm) in three posts. Don't feed the trolls, please.
Back OT, I like Crusade's organ donation analogy, but I can see why people who believe in embryonic-personhood would not. It's actually a very interesting test-case for dealing with questions of personal identity and what he minimum qualities of humanity are. But it goes beyond being a thought experiment; if we care about universal human rights, we should have a solid, consistent definition of what a human is. I (obviously) am not ready to offer such a definition, but it seems that the big schism on this issue is whether or not a mind/consciousness is one of these minimum qualities.
This is sort of like the Schiavo case; if the people who wanted to keep her on the feeding tube were presented with a similar dilemma (if we pull the tube now, she will die, but her organs will save the lives of six other people. If we wait until she dies of natural causes, her organs will not be usable), I don't think they would change their minds. Their position was that consciousness is not necessary for personhood, and I think the same reasoning is being applied to embryos here.
There is the added wrinkle of potential consciousness with embryos, but that is another thought experiment that you could spend all day on. Many of the opponents of this bill seem to be of the belief that there is a specific consciousness waiting for each fertilized egg (hence the diagrams Sen. Brownback provided of Einstein and MLK as embryos, as seen on the Daily Show). That, I think, takes us out of the realm of rational debate and into the realm of political grandstanding.
I guess I can't fault people for having an inconsistent (or at least instinctual) take on this matter, since it hinges on one of the most important aspects of our existence (the nature of our consciousness), which also happens to be one of the subjects we know the least about.
I will say that I do enjoy hashing this stuff out with all of you.
The analogy was meant to help people who believe the embryo is a living human being. Those who do not believe you are a human until a certain developmental point have no problems with stem cells, early abortions, ect. Those who do believe you are a human can use the analogy to justify stem cells and reconcile their beliefs. Those who are just against the practice don't really care what the other side says any more than the other side cares about what they think...
As for a final universal definition of human life... well, as a former philosophy major, I can tell you that truly brilliant people have read, studied, and discussed this almost their entire lives with a sequence of great minds to fall back on, and they don't know. Best you can hope for is you can find a definition that works for you. You'll never produce a total consensus on any issue, but we just need enough to move forward and progress. Fringe movements like the flat earthers, KKK, and eventually, one of these sides will be left holding the short stick of history.
The problem with this issue is that Bush didn't veto federal funding to this research because he felt it was out of the federal government's soveriegnty, he vetoed it because he morally disagrees with stem cell research.
Yeah! Instead we get dirty interns and adultrous Presidents who lie in court! YAY!
Imo, the courts shouldn't have been in his buisness anyway. that matter should have only been between Mr. and Ms. Clinton and them alone. although that does not excuse him from lying in court.
Drak
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
thanks to Nex3 and R&Doom at ye olde avatar and sig shop for the avatar
Pretty great idea. Yay to drak agnord for finding a way to rid of the pesky blockers.
The problem with this issue is that Bush didn't veto federal funding to this research because he felt it was out of the federal government's soveriegnty, he vetoed it because he morally disagrees with stem cell research.
Intent > result.
Let's say I'm an eccentric, rich, racist, paranoid old man. I decide to donate all my money, millions upon millions of dollars, to a random assortment of dozens of poor orphanages because, in my mind, the reallocation of assets "will disrupt the Zionist capitalist machine and spite the Jew overlords of our country."
Let's say I'm an eccentric, rich, racist, paranoid old man. I decide to donate all my money, millions upon millions of dollars, to a random assortment of dozens of poor orphanages because, in my mind, the reallocation of assets "will disrupt the Zionist capitalist machine and spite the Jew overlords of our country."
Result > intent.
I'm talking about how intent is viewed as more important than result in the judicial system, yo, not how they relate to each other on a scenario by scenario basis.
I'm talking about how intent is viewed as more important than result in the judicial system, yo, not how they relate to each other on a scenario by scenario basis.
Fringe movements like the flat earthers, KKK, and eventually, one of these sides will be left holding the short stick of history.
Of course, flat-earthers are simply wrong: there is no arguing it at this point.
I think that the stem-cell is not at all related to the human fetus, due to its far lesser potential for life, and if we are able to save lives with any cures we may find, we should simply go for it.
And people wonder why we are behind in science...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Green Arrow Yes I did, I wouldn't fully disagree with chronoplasam. Perhaps I do deserve toture. But who amongst us besides myself has what it takes to toture me?
Originally Posted by Highroller
Compared to what? I think compared to chocolate ice cream, women, unicorns, and kung fu, the state pretty much sucks.
The crux of the issue is that a lot of people believe it is immoral, and don't want to be forced to support it. If Stanford University is doing embryonic stem cell research, someone who believes that such research amounts to murder can deny Stanford money from tuition or donation. If the federal government is supporting embryonic stem cell research, the citizens of the country have little choice but to monetarily support it as well, even if they morally abhor it.
There's a lot of things that taxpayers don't want to pay for, but have to anyway. I don't want my tax money going to the military. Do I have any choice in that? No. While I don't necessarily agree with federal funding for stem cell research (I'm undecided on the issue, although I have no problems with embyronic stem cell reseearch, just uncdecided on the federal funding part), you can't use the argument that a portion of the taxpayers don't want their money going to it.
In other words, using federal grants to support Indian basket weaving may anger some people. Tough luck, we all have to deal with our money being used for things we don't agree with. But supporting the murder of millions of human lives? To many people, that's a whole different ball game.
A sizeable majority of the country has no problem with embyronic stem cell research. Bill Frist opposed the President's decision for Christ's sake, and from all the things I've heard of that guy, he's pretty damn right wing. Again, I don't want my tax money going to the military. So, your solution to that is "tough luck." Well, to those biblebangers who don't want their tax money going to federal funding for research on embryos that are going into the trash, I say, TOUGH LUCK.
By not wanting to support it, they're STILL murdering those millions of "human" lives. Why? Those "human" lives are heading for the trash can. I guess they'd rather see those "human" lives in the bottom of the city dump than being used to help fully grown, living, breathing human beings
Quote from RockHydra »
Yeah! Instead we get dirty interns and adultrous Presidents who lie in court! YAY!
Because every Democrat has a "dirty intern" and every Democrat commits adultery and every Democrat lies in court, right?
Quote from Harkius »
I propose to you that "dirty" interns and a President lying about his sex life in court is a little bit less of a concern than a president who continually misrepresents his aptitude and who attempts to unilaterally declare war on another country.
Quote from PlatedOrnithoper »
I think that the stem-cell is not at all related to the human fetus, due to its far lesser potential for life, and if we are able to save lives with any cures we may find, we should simply go for it.
OF COURSE this stem-cell stuff isn't related to a human fetus, because they aren't even stem cells from human fetuses! I would have a better time understanding opposition to using organs/cells from fetuses for research. But really now, this is EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
A sizeable majority of the country has no problem with embyronic stem cell research. Bill Frist opposed the President's decision for Christ's sake, and from all the things I've heard of that guy, he's pretty damn right wing. Again, I don't want my tax money going to the military. So, your solution to that is "tough luck." Well, to those biblebangers who don't want their tax money going to federal funding for research on embryos that are going into the trash, I say, TOUGH LUCK.
Indeed, people have varying opinions on what should be "I respect your objection" and what should be "tough luck." I see that you have an opinion on it. I certainly have an opinion. Your and my opinions, though, don't seem to matter much.
Quote from Bizkit Overlord »
By not wanting to support it, they're STILL murdering those millions of "human" lives. Why? Those "human" lives are heading for the trash can. I guess they'd rather see those "human" lives in the bottom of the city dump than being used to help fully grown, living, breathing human beings
Yes, they would. I think I've explained why several times already -- the belief is that utilizing their doom for science lends validity to their doom by science.
Indeed, people have varying opinions on what should be "I respect your objection" and what should be "tough luck." I see that you have an opinion on it. I certainly have an opinion. Your and my opinions, though, don't seem to matter much.
Yes, they would. I think I've explained why several times already -- the belief is that utilizing their doom for science lends validity to their doom by science.
There is still a difference between delibrately killing something for science (ans even creating for that matter) and something dying for other reasons, and then being used as science.
Its not that "use after accident-only" and "delibrate" have to go hand and hand. You can see/believe/define life to have more value that parts for science. Dead things have no life and could only have any serious value unless used for science. So its stricly better to just use it for science, but not to strictler better to just kill some guy for "spare parts". The only thing is that you have no make sure that "accidents" do not go unpunished, in general, however those would transpire (I can't picture any for this case at the time).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click here to visit my userpage at Wikipedia, where I am currently an administrator.:cool2:
"Your attack has been rendered quite harmless, it is however, quite pretty." -Saprazzan vizier
"It was probably a lowsy spell in the first place." -Ertai, wizer adept
"The duel was going badly for me and Zur thought I was finished. He boasted that he would eat my soul--but all he ate were his words." -Gustha Ebbasdotter
The first thing Bush has done in a year or so that I support. Good job, GW.
I'm looking in article 1, section 8 and I don't see anything about 'science research in the public interest'. Research like this is better done in the private sector, you get more bang for your buck.
Problem is, I think they've got some kind of rule that prevents such research in universities that accept federal funds - and there's only one uni in the country that doesn't.
I'm looking in article 1, section 8 and I don't see anything about 'science research in the public interest'.
The problem is, there's so much that the government does that isn't in the Consitution that idealism in it's interest is mostly ineffectual.
Being that the Constitution has, for the most part, been left behind, you might as well stop looking to that for a guideline in most situations and instead focus how whether or not you agree with them on a different level.
The first thing Bush has done in a year or so that I support. Good job, GW.
I'm looking in article 1, section 8 and I don't see anything about 'science research in the public interest'. Research like this is better done in the private sector, you get more bang for your buck.
Problem is, I think they've got some kind of rule that prevents such research in universities that accept federal funds - and there's only one uni in the country that doesn't.
Out of curiosity, I believe I know the answer but, are you morally against embryonic stem cell research, or just against the federal funding of it?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
The problem is, there's so much that the government does that isn't in the Consitution that idealism in it's interest is mostly ineffectual.
Sir, you touch the proverbial string with a broadsword.
Quote from Denver"D »
Being that the Constitution has, for the most part, been left behind, you might as well stop looking to that for a guideline in most situations and instead focus how whether or not you agree with them on a different level.
I've resigned myself to this most unfortunate truth: there is little left that isn't up for grabs.
Quote from Bizkit Overlord »
Out of curiosity, I believe I know the answer but, are you morally against embryonic stem cell research, or just against the federal funding of it?
Why, the federal funding of course. I'm all for the research.
Considering the glacial pace at which the government moves, do you really want them controlling the pursestrings of cutting-edge medical research? I know I don't. If embryonic stem cell research were as good as everyone said it was, the private sector funding would be more than adequate. Considering that it's currently all a lot of hype, I think the federal government should steer clear of it.
Dear Bush: Stem Cells are cells, they have no organs, tissues, structures, specialization, feelings, thoughts, NOTHING, they are cells!
I cant believe that just because the prez veto'd this just coz he didnt understand it.
EDIT: At least the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation will be able to make up for this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly known as steve-o
The internet is like drugs, it can be alot of fun, but most people on it say really stupid stuff
People knew what they were getting when they elected Bush. This wasn't a surprise, just a disapointment for many. I don't fault him for sticking to what he said he was going to do, I do wish he saw things my way, or that we had elected someone else...
As for the federal state local difference, it seems today that the federal government is taking more and more action that used to be left to the states. We already have the 14th amendment, and the full faith and credit clause, which means a large degree, there are things that states have no control over. Funding is something that can vary locality to locality, and I have already mentioned how state funding as well as private funding can be used to back this science up. federal funding would have helped the research, but this does help avoid the problem of some wanting to fund, and others not.
Still, the people through their elected representatives, and 70 percent of the public as a whole, support federal funded research. I understand it is a sensitive subject, but just because people might strongly be against it, doesn't mean you should always not do it. after all, We are at war in Iraq, the majority does not want us to be there, but we still do what some consider murder. People are forced to support it over their current moral beliefs. It seems to me you can have two different systems in place:
1. Just let everyone vote, and majority/politically savvy minority rules, no need for arguement or reason, just brute political force. It is what is going on here.
2. Use reason, common sense, and sound arguements, and go with the best side. Even if there is large or vocal dissent, unless they can present an arguement beyond "I just don't like it", it doesn't count.
This is a good response.
Everyday millions of people masterbate - guys waste their sperm cells and they die off.
Every month every woman on the planet menstrates, those eggs die off.
Put them together and what do you get? Free stem cells that were never intended to be human children.
BIBIDY BOPIDY BOOP!
Spread the word.
I'm sorry to do this, but:
War in Iraq. Torturing people to death. Capital punishment.
And if you are the President of the United States, the most powerful political figure in the country, and you are going to define the situation under which you don't veto this bill as leading to the murder of millions of Americans, how can you not apply that definition universally? If this is such a fundamental issue of morality that you can't ask even a minority of Americans to financially support it, how can you let it slide for IVF? Or abortion, for that matter?
EDIT: Hardcore 'nathed. But to add a little bit more, I generally agree with 'Stan's thinking on "universal application." The vigilantism analogy throws it off a bit, however, since it's not your moral duty to personally stop serial killers, either. However, when you are "The Decider," it's your job to make policy decisions like these, and they should be consistent, all things being equal. If doing research that requires the destruction of embryos that could grow up to be press-conference babies is tantamount to using the body parts of those children, why does it matter if the embryo was destroyed before or after Aug 9, 2001? I can see the logic in not wanting to "create life to destroy it," but that is where the inconsistencies with IVF come in.
Sig by Sash of deviantART
FEAR THE SPEAR
ARSENAL F.C.
USA
Back OT, I like Crusade's organ donation analogy, but I can see why people who believe in embryonic-personhood would not. It's actually a very interesting test-case for dealing with questions of personal identity and what he minimum qualities of humanity are. But it goes beyond being a thought experiment; if we care about universal human rights, we should have a solid, consistent definition of what a human is. I (obviously) am not ready to offer such a definition, but it seems that the big schism on this issue is whether or not a mind/consciousness is one of these minimum qualities.
This is sort of like the Schiavo case; if the people who wanted to keep her on the feeding tube were presented with a similar dilemma (if we pull the tube now, she will die, but her organs will save the lives of six other people. If we wait until she dies of natural causes, her organs will not be usable), I don't think they would change their minds. Their position was that consciousness is not necessary for personhood, and I think the same reasoning is being applied to embryos here.
There is the added wrinkle of potential consciousness with embryos, but that is another thought experiment that you could spend all day on. Many of the opponents of this bill seem to be of the belief that there is a specific consciousness waiting for each fertilized egg (hence the diagrams Sen. Brownback provided of Einstein and MLK as embryos, as seen on the Daily Show). That, I think, takes us out of the realm of rational debate and into the realm of political grandstanding.
I guess I can't fault people for having an inconsistent (or at least instinctual) take on this matter, since it hinges on one of the most important aspects of our existence (the nature of our consciousness), which also happens to be one of the subjects we know the least about.
I will say that I do enjoy hashing this stuff out with all of you.
As for a final universal definition of human life... well, as a former philosophy major, I can tell you that truly brilliant people have read, studied, and discussed this almost their entire lives with a sequence of great minds to fall back on, and they don't know. Best you can hope for is you can find a definition that works for you. You'll never produce a total consensus on any issue, but we just need enough to move forward and progress. Fringe movements like the flat earthers, KKK, and eventually, one of these sides will be left holding the short stick of history.
Intent > result.
Imo, the courts shouldn't have been in his buisness anyway. that matter should have only been between Mr. and Ms. Clinton and them alone. although that does not excuse him from lying in court.
Drak
Let's say I'm an eccentric, rich, racist, paranoid old man. I decide to donate all my money, millions upon millions of dollars, to a random assortment of dozens of poor orphanages because, in my mind, the reallocation of assets "will disrupt the Zionist capitalist machine and spite the Jew overlords of our country."
Result > intent.
I'm talking about how intent is viewed as more important than result in the judicial system, yo, not how they relate to each other on a scenario by scenario basis.
oh my bad
It's cool, I did a bad job of elaborating.
Of course, flat-earthers are simply wrong: there is no arguing it at this point.
I think that the stem-cell is not at all related to the human fetus, due to its far lesser potential for life, and if we are able to save lives with any cures we may find, we should simply go for it.
And people wonder why we are behind in science...
now begins the thousand years of REIGN OF BLOOD!
There's a lot of things that taxpayers don't want to pay for, but have to anyway. I don't want my tax money going to the military. Do I have any choice in that? No. While I don't necessarily agree with federal funding for stem cell research (I'm undecided on the issue, although I have no problems with embyronic stem cell reseearch, just uncdecided on the federal funding part), you can't use the argument that a portion of the taxpayers don't want their money going to it.
A sizeable majority of the country has no problem with embyronic stem cell research. Bill Frist opposed the President's decision for Christ's sake, and from all the things I've heard of that guy, he's pretty damn right wing. Again, I don't want my tax money going to the military. So, your solution to that is "tough luck." Well, to those biblebangers who don't want their tax money going to federal funding for research on embryos that are going into the trash, I say, TOUGH LUCK.
By not wanting to support it, they're STILL murdering those millions of "human" lives. Why? Those "human" lives are heading for the trash can. I guess they'd rather see those "human" lives in the bottom of the city dump than being used to help fully grown, living, breathing human beings
Because every Democrat has a "dirty intern" and every Democrat commits adultery and every Democrat lies in court, right?
OF COURSE this stem-cell stuff isn't related to a human fetus, because they aren't even stem cells from human fetuses! I would have a better time understanding opposition to using organs/cells from fetuses for research. But really now, this is EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS.
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
Indeed, people have varying opinions on what should be "I respect your objection" and what should be "tough luck." I see that you have an opinion on it. I certainly have an opinion. Your and my opinions, though, don't seem to matter much.
Yes, they would. I think I've explained why several times already -- the belief is that utilizing their doom for science lends validity to their doom by science.
There is still a difference between delibrately killing something for science (ans even creating for that matter) and something dying for other reasons, and then being used as science.
Its not that "use after accident-only" and "delibrate" have to go hand and hand. You can see/believe/define life to have more value that parts for science. Dead things have no life and could only have any serious value unless used for science. So its stricly better to just use it for science, but not to strictler better to just kill some guy for "spare parts". The only thing is that you have no make sure that "accidents" do not go unpunished, in general, however those would transpire (I can't picture any for this case at the time).
"Your attack has been rendered quite harmless, it is however, quite pretty." -Saprazzan vizier
"It was probably a lowsy spell in the first place." -Ertai, wizer adept
"The duel was going badly for me and Zur thought I was finished. He boasted that he would eat my soul--but all he ate were his words." -Gustha Ebbasdotter
I'm looking in article 1, section 8 and I don't see anything about 'science research in the public interest'. Research like this is better done in the private sector, you get more bang for your buck.
Problem is, I think they've got some kind of rule that prevents such research in universities that accept federal funds - and there's only one uni in the country that doesn't.
The problem is, there's so much that the government does that isn't in the Consitution that idealism in it's interest is mostly ineffectual.
Being that the Constitution has, for the most part, been left behind, you might as well stop looking to that for a guideline in most situations and instead focus how whether or not you agree with them on a different level.
Out of curiosity, I believe I know the answer but, are you morally against embryonic stem cell research, or just against the federal funding of it?
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
Yeah, what about that?
Sir, you touch the proverbial string with a broadsword.
I've resigned myself to this most unfortunate truth: there is little left that isn't up for grabs.
Why, the federal funding of course. I'm all for the research.
Considering the glacial pace at which the government moves, do you really want them controlling the pursestrings of cutting-edge medical research? I know I don't. If embryonic stem cell research were as good as everyone said it was, the private sector funding would be more than adequate. Considering that it's currently all a lot of hype, I think the federal government should steer clear of it.
My Eternal Cube on CubeTutor| |My Reject Rare Cube on CubeTutor| |My Peasant Cube on CubeTutor
I used to write for MTGS, including Cranial Insertion and cube articles. Good on you if you can find those after the upgrade.
Dear Bush: Stem Cells are cells, they have no organs, tissues, structures, specialization, feelings, thoughts, NOTHING, they are cells!
I cant believe that just because the prez veto'd this just coz he didnt understand it.
EDIT: At least the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation will be able to make up for this.
The internet is like drugs, it can be alot of fun, but most people on it say really stupid stuff