seventypercent [TotalFark]

Ultimately, these lawmakers and physicians will not have to answer to me, but I feel that it is unfortunate that the American people have put a party into office that will (apparently) have no qualms about breaching morality in the interest of populist "touchy-feely" positions. I will say this: He who they do have to answer is not going to be swayed by liberal media outlets or gushy commercials featuring left-wing actors. His word is eternal, and they may not like what it has to say.

They don't have a qualm because they don't believe they are breaching morality. For what it's worth, they are also baffled by people like you when they hear things like "There was a reason that God gave Parkinson's disease to Michael J. Fox." I mean, most of the people voting for this bill, both Democratic and Republican, are likely not of the opinion that God is the dispensary of illness in the world, it's not like he goes around giving people the flu or anything... To me anyways, it seems that to assign all responsibility to God is to forgo personal responsibility, to forgo even looking at any problem, be it polio, smallpox, pneumonia, the plauge, or anything... because we could just chalk up all problems to God, never examining our own roles as vectors, never examining our hygiene beyond what Leviticus dictated, never even looking at the germs and wondering how or why they behave the way they do. I mean, if you choose to believe that God put us all on the planet to sit quietly and wait for him to disease us, you're free to do so... but to simply dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as amoral would be an overly simplistic disservice to both yourself and them.

seventypercent: Medical care has always been a controversial issue within the moral community. Sure, it's one thing to have the ability to set a broken leg or stitch up a cut finger, but when you are talking about things like cancer or Parkinson's disease, you are treading on much thinner ice. Michael J. Fox got a lot of attention during the last election cycle, but if you were paying attention, you'll notice that liberals never once addressed a key point: There was a reason that God gave Parkinson's disease to Michael J. Fox. The phrase "playing God" has been overused to the point of becoming a cliche, but that does not in any way, shape, or form diminish its appropriateness; at what point do medical doctors cross the boundary between healing the injured and intervening in the will of the Lord?

Ultimately, these lawmakers and physicians will not have to answer to me, but I feel that it is unfortunate that the American people have put a party into office that will (apparently) have no qualms about breaching morality in the interest of populist "touchy-feely" positions. I will say this: He who they do have to answer is not going to be swayed by liberal media outlets or gushy commercials featuring left-wing actors. His word is eternal, and they may not like what it has to say.

And if your wrong and have to answer to Jesus for judging others and pushing your views incorectly on people and causing suffering and strife, where will you be?

Jesus would have been a liberal. The whole acceptance and understanding bit there. Spouting the Bible and going to church every Sunday have nothing to do with being a Christian. Living the best life you can by his teachings is what Christianity is about.

Remember... Jesus was trying to reform Judaism not start a new religion.

firefly212: They don't have a qualm because they don't believe they are breaching morality. For what it's worth, they are also baffled by people like you when they hear things like "There was a reason that God gave Parkinson's disease to Michael J. Fox." I mean, most of the people voting for this bill, both Democratic and Republican, are likely not of the opinion that God is the dispensary of illness in the world, it's not like he goes around giving people the flu or anything... To me anyways, it seems that to assign all responsibility to God is to forgo personal responsibility, to forgo even looking at any problem, be it polio, smallpox, pneumonia, the plauge, or anything... because we could just chalk up all problems to God, never examining our own roles as vectors, never examining our hygiene beyond what Leviticus dictated, never even looking at the germs and wondering how or why they behave the way they do. I mean, if you choose to believe that God put us all on the planet to sit quietly and wait for him to disease us, you're free to do so... but to simply dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as amoral would be an overly simplistic disservice to both yourself and them.

I agree...

Maybe God set up the rules and there is a test involved. do you think by destroying the environment and the earth that we are pleasing him? What if the whole reign here on earth is the test to see if we are smart enough to survive.

There might be a nice time limit (meteor, or Sun going Super Nova) and surviving might be the winning play. God let us eat at the tree on Knowledge. Now we have to prove that we are capable of using our brains to some kind of good.

Who knows, but God certainly give you license to be an ass to the people around you, not dictate what they do or how they act.

The whole issue of morality when it comes to medical care is politically dubious as well.

Take the coverage that is acceptable to your moral/religious position and leave the rest for those who do not object. It's not all that hard to reconcile, your actions get you into heaven, not the actions of others.

As far as trying to refine governmental actions to fit your particular world view, good luck. Government is supposed to be representative. Good luck trying to make one set of morals work for even a small group of people that haven't been assembled for that specific purpose.

sleepy... tired and not making much sense... later and good Farking to all...

Time to see all that "bi-partisan cooperation" Bush talked about after the election.

Stem cell research has not cured anything and nor is there any evidence of a possibility of a cure from stem cell research.

Bravo! Next on the chopping block: Cancer. We ain't cured that niether.

"Bah, this is horrible news if true.

Medical care has always been a controversial issue within the moral community. Sure, it's one thing to have the ability to set a broken leg or stitch up a cut finger, but when you are talking about things like cancer or Parkinson's disease, you are treading on much thinner ice. Michael J. Fox got a lot of attention during the last election cycle, but if you were paying attention, you'll notice that liberals never once addressed a key point: There was a reason that God gave Parkinson's disease to Michael J. Fox. The phrase "playing God" has been overused to the point of becoming a cliche, but that does not in any way, shape, or form diminish its appropriateness; at what point do medical doctors cross the boundary between healing the injured and intervening in the will of the Lord?

Ultimately, these lawmakers and physicians will not have to answer to me, but I feel that it is unfortunate that the American people have put a party into office that will (apparently) have no qualms about breaching morality in the interest of populist "touchy-feely" positions. I will say this: He who they do have to answer is not going to be swayed by liberal media outlets or gushy commercials featuring left-wing actors. His word is eternal, and they may not like what it has to say."
So let me get this straight. Because of your faith in your particular version of an invisible sky wizard, the rest of of us sane people should not research a cure for cancer? Never mind the fact that your unshakable faith is merely an accident, totally random depending on place of birth and up-bringing. Don't see too many christian fundies in saudi arabia do you? I wonder why?

You must be trolling. People with viewpoints as barbarian and backwards as yours surely do not know how to use a computer. Shouldn't you be off boycotting walmart or railing against gay's somewhere?

Suck it, Republifags.

Noam Chimpsky

Anyone can start a war in the middle east again for no reason with no exit strategy and lie his ass off to the public about it multiple times but it's not clear as to why my tax dollars should be used for this.

2006-11-24 08:46:22 PMDojaPatrol

So according to the very basic tenets of conservative theory, if you advocate spreading democracy, that makes you a liberal. I could go on and on about states rights(terry schiavo) or smaller government (patriot act) or fiscal conservatism (Iraq? 900 Billion?) but what is the point? Every "conservative" i have talked to online actually seems pretty liberal too me.

Except liberals didn't support those things either. Try again.

Scientific research in general should be publically funded, for several reasons:

1. The peer-reviewed format of academia both makes research rapid as well as correcting errors relatively quickly. It's rare to ever be the only group working on an idea, and the reviews and experiments of your peers give a tremendous amount of feedback. Your peers may well think of alternate explanations for phenomena or point out a methodological flaw you missed. Or they may duplicate the experiment and come up with diametrically opposite results. Plus, by nature of the research being done in many places independently there is a large degree of parallelism which speeds the process; your lab doesn't need to do every component itself.

It will take a decade or two to unlock the chemical combinations necessary to truly utilize stem cells to their fullest. A private company without access to peer review would be lucky to complete it in a century; the amount of work needed is astronomical. And a flawed experiment could set the work back decades, depending on how long it took to catch.

2. Many aspects of research don't pay off directly. Studying the effects of a particular signalling pathway for two decades may produce nothing immediate, but will lay the groundwork for other kinds of research that is very useful. And you generally don't know whether an area will be fruitful or not.

3. The benefit is so long-term that it's ridiculous for a company to do many kinds of research. Investing millions now for the chance to make billions in five decades is a decision that few companies will make.

I don't think "cool" is the correct tag for this statement.

Don't want my tax dollars going towards destroying life -

Just like many here don't want their tax dollars going towards destroying life in Iraq.

- people don't realize that cordblood donations from births of babies supplies enough viable stem cells, there shouldn't even be a debate about this - shouldn't even be a need to destroy living embryos.

- I know - my wife works with cordblood donations. -
- she and I are both living examples of embryos who were not killed for stem cell research -

DojaPervert -

"Don't see too many christian fundies in saudi arabia do you? I wonder why? You must be trolling. People with viewpoints as barbarian and backwards as yours surely do not know how to use a computer. Shouldn't you be off boycotting walmart or railing against gay's somewhere?"

That is the most idiotic statement I've heard today; There aren't any "Christian fundies" in Saudi Arabia because anyone who converts to Christianity there is killed, plain and simple. Your question is like me asking why there aren't any Bloods in North Mpls (where I'm from) - why there are only Crips. It's because a Blood gets shot on the north side. You don't wear red.

And calling someone who believes in the preservation of human life "barbarian" shows your true colors. Take a history lesson and learn what a barbarian is, first of all. After you go Google it (a lesson you can learn in Computer 101), come back to fark and admit that you, DojaPerve, shouldn't be condemning others.

Why don't you go find a cave with all your troll relatives and step out of this thread?

so preserving life is what to you? Let's be clear hear. You do understand that the stem cell research lines in question here are embryos that are going to be destroyed right? These aren't little children waiting to be born. They aren't waiting for adoption and implantation. They are surplus embryos that will be destroyed.

So you would rather these be destroyed, than used to find cures for cancer, and other fatal illness's? Some humanitarian you are. I guess preservation of human life only applies in the abstract. To embryos that will never actually see life, and are set to to be incinerated.And im sure that any cures or treatments that result from SCR, you will refuse if you ever become terminally ill. Sure.

And my point about Saudi Arabia you must have missed. Its understandable. I will make it clear. The absolute faith so many christians have in the US is an accident predicated by place of birth. Any religious belief, be it islam, taoism, ect, is random. No faith is right. No religion is the true one. Overwhelmingly people have their faith because of environment and up-bringing.

And please, Dojaperv? How typical. Just because I don't spend my life hating an entire portion of the human population based solely on their sex life, doesn't make me a pervert. Nothing like using an irrelevant old book to validate your fear and hate of something you don't understand.

Family-values hah. Like gay people don't have families? They just rise out of the earth from hell, set on destroying america. Ask dick cheney about family values, I'm sure he would love to share about having a gay relative.

NateInYourFace
I don't think "cool" is the correct tag for this statement.

Don't want my tax dollars going towards destroying life -

They aren't. The embryos that would be harvested for cells would be ones scheduled for destruction in IVF clinics. The embryos would be destroyed regardless, and the tax dollars wouldn't pay for that part anyhow, just the research done on those cells later.

- people don't realize that cordblood donations from births of babies supplies enough viable stem cells, there shouldn't even be a debate about this - shouldn't even be a need to destroy living embryos.

Again, firstly these are embryos that are being destroyed anyway, they are leftovers from the IVF process. And secondly, cord stem cells are not the same thing as embryonic, anymore than a car is an airplane despite them both being vehicles.

Apparently there is this misconception out there that these blood-thirst evil scientists are lining up to kill babies for scr. The level of ignorance about so basic a subject is appalling.

The embryos in question here are going to be destroyed. There is no life to save here. There is nothing to preserve. This isn't abortion.

Scientists would rather these embryos be used for the good of the population, than just destroyed and of no use to anyone. Seems to me that the scientists are more interested in the preservation of life than the people protesting the funding.

Of course, if your version of preservation of life only applies to doomed cultured embryos left over from a couples last attempt at procreation, then you would disagree. Seems to me that wouldn't it be logical to protest IVF, since all of these surplus embryos are the fault of that procedure?

Just because it wasn't posted yet:

BrotherAlpha:
How is scientific research private enterprise?

Dancin_In_Anson:
You're kidding, right? Or do I need to list the industries that conduct scientific research in order to develop products and procedures for profit?

Please tell me I don't.

You are, quite simply, the most retarded man on Fark outside Bevets.

1.) There's a huge difference between R&D to develope a product and scientific research to expand knowledge.

2.) You spend the rest of the post arguing with spucky and Deucednuisance that just because government spents money on something doesn't mean they should. Conversely, just because corporations spend money on something doesn't make it a commodity.

Doesnt the bill have to go through both houses? So the president could just veto it when it goes through the Senate, couldn't he?

Either way, I support stem cell research. The fundies are way off base with their logic against it.

anyone can go have an abortion and give it to some scientist to try to cook up a potion that will make some spastic actor live forever but it's not clear as to why my tax dollars should be used for this.

Normally, it's good to be knowledgable of the subject before you spout drivel.

But then again, your reaction is the norm for ignorant red-staters like yourself, so I don't know why I'm surprised.

BudTheSpud

Doesnt the bill have to go through both houses? So the president could just veto it when it goes through the Senate, couldn't he?

Read the headline/article. They are now saying they think they have enough voted to OVERRIDE a presidential veto.


Either way, I support stem cell research. The fundies are way off base with their logic against it.

Agreed 100%. The only ones arguing against it are those who clearly demonstrate that they do not understand it.

Dancin_In_Anson:

It is not the job of the federal government to fund research into anything, be it where to find more oil or where to find medical cures. Government cannot do it as quickly nor as efficiently as the private sector and this will wind up being another bottomless pit of fraud and waste...

Bullshiat.

The unfettered private sector is not always better than the government, especially when it comes to basic research that doesn't have immediate profit potential.

If the we followed your lead, our country and the world would suck a lot.

Sum Dum Gai: Scientific research in general should be publically funded, for several reasons:


Yeah...what you said. Since some of the early posts were so ridiculous, I couldn't wait to read the whole thread before posting.

Noam Chimpsky

I don't believe the constitution authorizes that my tax dollars be used to kill babies for the purpose of finding miracle cures that will make lousy actors stop having spaz attacks.

The powers of government are not strictly limited to what the Constitution dictates. The legislative branch is authorized to pass new laws, including expenditures and earmarked udgets.

And I really doubt that you will be affected to any significant degree by the money spent on ESCR. Tell you what- if you have to file personal bankruptcy as a direct result of stem cell research, I owe you a Coke.

Stem cell research does not "kill babies" unless of course they use a pitchfork to make dead baby floats, then there might be something to the dead baby thing.

Cellular mass not = baby.

the christian fundies willfully ignore the facts relating to embryonic scr to validate their position. Just as they willfully ignore science to validate their position on evolution. Even though the embryos in discussion here will all be destroyed anyway, why let that little fact get in the way of a good rant about baby-killing scientists? Even though there time spent protesting gays and abortion clinics would be better spent working at a homeless shelter or volunteering at a nursing home, why let helping others get in the way of nice, delusional hatred?

AirForceVet:"If stem cell research had been federally funded, Christopher Reeve would still be alive today!"

Look, if you're opposed to stem cell research, just say so. :D

Noam Chimpsky

I don't believe the constitution authorizes that my tax dollars be used to kill babies for the purpose of finding miracle cures that will make lousy actors stop having spaz attacks.

Talk to your congressman. You may need to begin drumming up grass-roots support for the "Anti-miracle-cures" platform, but I wish you the best of luck in your endeavor. Fly high, space pilgrim!

Dancin_In_Anson: No, they shouldn't. Big difference. Government can spend money on damn near anything they want. Doesn't make it right, does it?

All I can say is, your concession of the main point makes your foot-stamping a little pointless.

The government has the power, it's a legitimate power, and they have exercised that power since the inception of the Republic.

But it's just not right, dammit!

Could you get over yourself, just this once?