Should federal money be used to fund stem cell research?

If possible, I'd like to leave aside the question of the morality of the research itself (endless, acrimonious  debate there)--should the United States use money generated through taxation to support and fund this research? Is it moral, decent, or even courteous to force people to feel that they're (possibly) supporting something financially they absolutely refuse to support morally? Or are the concerns of slope-browed, "Sperit-filled", Bible-thumping Deliverance-type cretins trumped by the obvious medical benefits to a suffering humanity? Just as many think that the children of Jehovah's Witnesses should be strapped down for blood transfusions while their parents are prosecuted for willful child abuse, should conscientious objectors to stem-cell research have their cash forcibly removed because, well...they're just wrong?

Whadaya think?

Should federal money be used to fund stem cell research?

If possible, I'd like to leave aside the question of the morality of the research itself (endless, acrimonious  debate there)--should the United States use money generated through taxation to support and fund this research? Is it moral, decent, or even courteous to force people to feel that they're (possibly) supporting something financially they absolutely refuse to support morally? Or are the concerns of slope-browed, "Sperit-filled", Bible-thumping Deliverance-type cretins trumped by the obvious medical benefits to a suffering humanity? Just as many think that the children of Jehovah's Witnesses should be strapped down for blood transfusions while their parents are prosecuted for willful child abuse, should conscientious objectors to stem-cell research have their cash forcibly removed because, well...they're just wrong?

Whadaya think?

We're talking about a cluster of 150 undifferentiated cells with no CNS.  By comparison, the brain of a fly has 100,000 cells (twice as many as the brain of the average religious fundamentalist).  This is a proto-embryo, not a human being.
If our reactionary government wants to forsake 500 years of rational inquiry for crackpot medieval superstition, then God help us, science can't!
:o

We're talking about a cluster of 150 undifferentiated cells with no CNS.  By comparison, the brain of a fly has 100,000 cells (twice as many as the brain of the average religious fundamentalist).  This is a proto-embryo, not a human being.
If our reactionary government wants to forsake 500 years of rational inquiry for crackpot medieval superstition, then God help us, science can't!
:o


As I feared, we're off-topic already. I am a person of faith. As for the activity under discussion, Ah'm agin it. I'd be agin it under any conceivable set of circumstances, even if I or, yes, a member of my family were to be affected. (This revulses you to the core of your being, and the urge to curse me as an amoral monster is overwhelming).(I am convinced that there are far worse things than physical suffering--and yes, both loved ones and I have suffered, and are suffering). Certainly the cells are undifferintiated at this point, but if we refrain from diddling around with them for our own exploitative ends, they will become a human being (or are "big with human potentiality", or however the hell else it could be said).

BE THAT AS IT MAY...the topic is whether or not individual conscience can be simply picked up by the hair and cast aside because you don't agree with it. What about conscientious objection to war? No reasonable person should, by definition, be against "rational inquiry"--but if they can't get their rational inquiry funded to their complete satisfaction through the private sector, why should that be my public problem?

As I feared, we're off-topic already. I am a person of faith. As for the activity under discussion, Ah'm agin it. I'd be agin it under any conceivable set of circumstances, even if I or, yes, a member of my family were to be affected. (This revulses you to the core of your being, and the urge to curse me as an amoral monster is overwhelming).(I am convinced that there are far worse things than physical suffering--and yes, both loved ones and I have suffered, and are suffering). Certainly the cells are undifferintiated at this point, but if we refrain from diddling around with them for our own exploitative ends, they will become a human being (or are "big with human potentiality", or however the hell else it could be said).

BE THAT AS IT MAY...the topic is whether or not individual conscience can be simply picked up by the hair and cast aside because you don't agree with it. What about conscientious objection to war? No reasonable person should, by definition, be against "rational inquiry"--but if they can't get their rational inquiry funded to their complete satisfaction through the private sector, why should that be my public problem?

Say you got burned up in a car accident.  There is advanced skin grafting available because of stem cell research.  Would you refuse this cure on account of it killing souls via embryo-cide?
If killing is killing is killing, why is it OK for the private sector to kill and not OK for the public sector?  Is killing OK because your tax-dollars don't pay for it?
If stem cell research does not receive public funding it will be the exception to most important medico-scientific research.  Most advances in medicine and science are funded by the public sector.  The Right is in total denial about this.  Our government pays for scientific developments through tax money, and then hands the profit-making results over to private industry for private profit.  The slogan ought to be: "Socialize the science, privatize the technology."
Suppose I was a Jain--a faith of total pacifism--should I get to tell the government to defund the military because war is offensive to my religious beliefs?  Most everyone would say that  in America I am welcome to my own religious beliefs, but we need the military to serve and protect the public good.  Likewise with stem cell research.  The scientific evidence does not show a group of 150 undifferentiated cells to have the sentience of a human, a cat, or a mosquito.  It is alive, but has no central nervous system, and no discernable consciousness.  We must choose then between scientific evidence and faith.  The same with evolution versus creationism.  There is no scientific evidence for "intelligent design," only conjecture and faith.  The question becomes, what shall determine our national agenda, science or faith?  If it be faith, then whose faith?  Does a Buddhist, a Hindu, or a Jain have equal claim as a Christian or a Jew in faith-based policy-making?  Where does that leave the athiest whose faith is that there is no faith?
Can you not see the trouble to which FAITH over SCIENCE will lead?

Is it moral, decent, or even courteous to force people to feel that they're (possibly) supporting something financially they absolutely refuse to support morally?


My taxes go to support the war in Iraq.  Why should what someone else absolutely refuses to support morally matter more than what I absolutely refuse to support morally?   

My taxes go to support the war in Iraq.  Why should what someone else absolutely refuses to support morally matter more than what I absolutely refuse to support morally?   






An excellant point.  If we all got to chose how our tax $$$ were spent, the priorities in Washington would probably be better, but there would be utter chaos.  Why should tobacco farmers get tax support?  Why should corporations get their overseas investments insured by the Fed Gov't etc. etc. etc.?

Say you got burned up in a car accident.  There is advanced skin grafting available because of stem cell research.  Would you refuse this cure on account of it killing souls via embryo-cide?
If killing is killing is killing, why is it OK for the private sector to kill and not OK for the public sector?  Is killing OK because your tax-dollars don't pay for it?
If stem cell research does not receive public funding it will be the exception to most important medico-scientific research.  Most advances in medicine and science are funded by the public sector.  The Right is in total denial about this.  Our government pays for scientific developments through tax money, and then hands the profit-making results over to private industry for private profit.  The slogan ought to be: "Socialize the science, privatize the technology."
Suppose I was a Jain--a faith of total pacifism--should I get to tell the government to defund the military because war is offensive to my religious beliefs?  Most everyone would say that  in America I am welcome to my own religious beliefs, but we need the military to serve and protect the public good.  Likewise with stem cell research.  The scientific evidence does not show a group of 150 undifferentiated cells to have the sentience of a human, a cat, or a mosquito.  It is alive, but has no central nervous system, and no discernable consciousness.  We must choose then between scientific evidence and faith.  The same with evolution versus creationism.  There is no scientific evidence for "intelligent design," only conjecture and faith.  The question becomes, what shall determine our national agenda, science or faith?  If it be faith, then whose faith?  Does a Buddhist, a Hindu, or a Jain have equal claim as a Christian or a Jew in faith-based policy-making?  Where does that leave the athiest whose faith is that there is no faith?
Can you not see the trouble to which FAITH over SCIENCE will lead?


Thank you, Sir, for a well-considered response. If left alone, I tend to ramble, but a quick response to some of your points.
1. Yup, I'd refuse the skin grafts, or hope I could retain the courage to do so. Why burn up the inside too?
2. Private-sector killing is of course not O.K., but I am not being legally forced into moral complicity with it. Would my wife and child understand if I refused to pay taxes, and so went to prison? Would I have the guts to even do it, or would I slither away from my convictions like a diseased rat? Thoreau could do it, but he was an unattached bachelor sponging off friends. I really don't want my country to force that choice upon me.
3. Given the...let's not say "fallen" or "corrupt"...let's say "imperfect" nature of humankind, war is a necessary evil. Stem-cell research is not. If the issue of the nature of the "proto-embryonic material" is at least debatable (as it certainly seems to be--I'm aware that, for you, it probably is not, except as an exercise), why not err on the side of caution before we go joining sperm and egg for the sole purpose of benefitting ourselves?
4. The "undifferentiated cells" don't just appear out of nowhere in a laboratory. They are the result of the joining of quite differentiated cells -- sperm containing genetic material from a donor --let's call him a "father", just for sport--and egg containing such material from--you guessed it--a "mother." (Flagrant emotionalism in a serious rational discussion--tsk, tsk). If tenderly cared for--and not raped and plundered--these cells will become neither a cat nor a mosquito, but...correct. We are all in a process of development; that's what life is. If we work hard, many of us may succeed in becoming fully human one day (I know I'm trying). I cannot see how destroying an advanced sentience for our own convenience is morally and legally wrong, but destroying a very young, immature, and defenseless one for the same reason is O.K.
5. Can you not see the trouble to which SCIENCE over FAITH has led?

My taxes go to support the war in Iraq.  Why should what someone else absolutely refuses to support morally matter more than what I absolutely refuse to support morally?   






I don't support the war in Iraq, and I pay my taxes. So I guess I've already screwed the pooch. But what logic is it to say that since I'm already morally compromised, I might as well go for broke and do it again and again and again? War has been with us as long as we've been human, but if we could have gotten in on the original discussions of whether or not to go for it--to kill other people so we could have more food, or land, or women, or whatever--I hope we would have argued forcefully against the whole idea. Can't we do that now? Why must our own comfort and advantage trump every other possible concern?

Thank you, Sir, for a well-considered response. If left alone, I tend to ramble, but a quick response to some of your points.
1. Yup, I'd refuse the skin grafts, or hope I could retain the courage to do so. Why burn up the inside too?
I don't think you would, bud, not when you're writhing in agony from third degree burns and your life is hanging in the balance.  If you refused the treatment, you'd be a fool...but, hey, no one could call you a hypocrite!

2. Private-sector killing is of course not O.K., but I am not being legally forced into moral complicity with it. Would my wife and child understand if I refused to pay taxes, and so went to prison? Would I have the guts to even do it, or would I slither away from my convictions like a diseased rat? Thoreau could do it, but he was an unattached bachelor sponging off friends. I really don't want my country to force that choice upon me.
Fair enough.  I don't think stem cell research is "killing," and most Americans don't think so either, at least the ones who get their information from biologists instead of FOX News pundits and shrieking funny-mentalist pastors.  I guess that's now about 20% of the population in this dying backassward republic!
:P
3. Given the...let's not say "fallen" or "corrupt"...let's say "imperfect" nature of humankind, war is a necessary evil.
It depends on how you define "necessary."  War today is driven by corporate greed, racial intolerance, and religious intolerance.  The Muslims, the Christians, and the Jews are inflicting a vast amount of misery on mankind today.  The secularist dogma of communism that caused the deaths of tens of millions in the 20th century is relegated to a few dark corners of the planet, whereas corporate dogma is wringing the blood out of people all over the globe. 
As usual, violence among nations is caused by princes, priests, and merchants, not scientists.

Stem-cell research is not.
Thus it is necessary to let petroleum interests send us to kill hundreds of thousands in Iraq, but it is not necessary to proceed with scientific research that may save hundreds of thousands of lives in the near future, all because of some cockamamie article of faith regarding a cluster of undifferentiated cells.
If the issue of the nature of the "proto-embryonic material" is at least debatable (as it certainly seems to be--I'm aware that, for you, it probably is not, except as an exercise), why not err on the side of caution before we go joining sperm and egg for the sole purpose of benefitting ourselves?
I think it is a magnificent purpose of joining sperm and egg to create stem cells that can improve and prolong the lives of human beings.

If you say using stem cells is the same thing as using a fully formed post-natal human being, then what of the precursors of these cells--the sperm and ova?  Since stem cells become embryo, embryo becomes fetus, and fetus is born into infancy, then what of the elements composing stem cells?  I hope you have never ejaculated without the intent to make a baby because if you have, you've committed genicide!
4. The "undifferentiated cells" don't just appear out of nowhere in a laboratory. They are the result of the joining of quite differentiated cells -- sperm containing genetic material from a donor --let's call him a "father", just for sport--and egg containing such material from--you guessed it--a "mother." (Flagrant emotionalism in a serious rational discussion--tsk, tsk). If tenderly cared for--and not raped and plundered--these cells will become neither a cat nor a mosquito, but...correct. We are all in a process of development; that's what life is. If we work hard, many of us may succeed in becoming fully human one day (I know I'm trying). I cannot see how destroying an advanced sentience for our own convenience is morally and legally wrong, but destroying a very young, immature, and defenseless one for the same reason is O.K.
The union of sperm and ova fails on its own more than it ever fails due to deliberate intervention.  If God deemed every stem cell sacred, why hasn't He improved upon the biological process?  So many of these glorious unions never attach to the uterine wall and are excreted during the menstrual cycle, not to mention the so-called miscarriages later in pregnancy.  I know, I know, "the LORD giveth and taketh away," but that's an unprovable article of faith yet again!
5. Can you not see the trouble to which SCIENCE over FAITH has led?

Sure, just ask Dr. Einstein!  Scientists develop the process, engineers develop the technology, and politicians, generals, and corporate executives use the technology for evil ends.  However, if you put FAITH before SCIENCE, you have to side with the clerics who condemned Copernicus for his scientific observation that the Earth revolves around the sun.  If we never allowed empirical evidence to supercede religious faith, we'd still live in the dark ages, and your wife would have died in childbirth by now.  How would you like to catch a "summer chill" and die of pneumonia before Labor Day?  Maybe you'd like the clerics to flog your epileptic son in order to beat the demons out of him.  Little things like that probably wouldn't bother you as a person of faith because it's all in God's plan!  After all, before the advent of "science" our world was a utopian and pacific place where we all shared and shared alike.  There was no war, no greed, no jealousy, and no deception back in the eleventh century!
::)

I don't support the war in Iraq, and I pay my taxes. So I guess I've already screwed the pooch. But what logic is it to say that since I'm already morally compromised, I might as well go for broke and do it again and again and again? War has been with us as long as we've been human, but if we could have gotten in on the original discussions of whether or not to go for it--to kill other people so we could have more food, or land, or women, or whatever--I hope we would have argued forcefully against the whole idea. Can't we do that now? Why must our own comfort and advantage trump every other possible concern?


My point is that you can't please all of the people all of the time, so if you don't fund something because person A is morally opposed to it, you either decide that person A's opinions carry more weight than anyone else's or you can't fund anything anyone else is morally opposed to either -- pick something that's funded by tax dollars and you'll find at least one taxpayer who's every bit as morally opposed to that thing being funded by tax dollars as you are to stem cell research being funded by tax dollars.  In fact, there are many people in this country who object that strongly to ANYthing being funded by tax dollars.  ALL of us "support" things through our tax dollars that we would never support privately. 

My point is that you can't please all of the people all of the time, so if you don't fund something because person A is morally opposed to it, you either decide that person A's opinions carry more weight than anyone else's or you can't fund anything anyone else is morally opposed to either -- pick something that's funded by tax dollars and you'll find at least one taxpayer who's every bit as morally opposed to that thing being funded by tax dollars as you are to stem cell research being funded by tax dollars.  In fact, there are many people in this country who object that strongly to ANYthing being funded by tax dollars.  ALL of
us "support" things through our tax dollars that we would never support privately. 
You  can dumb dumb of the people dumb of the time and dumb of the people all of the time, but you can't dumb all of the people all of the time!
;D

This morning'sd paper reported that the House passed 2 bills supporting stem cell research, both with support from moderate Republicans (apparantly there still are some).  Lil' Georgie will, no doubt, veto one of them.  Here's a link to the article.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050525/NEWS/505250318/1024/NEWS04

This morning'sd paper reported that the House passed 2 bills supporting stem cell research, both with support from moderate Republicans (apparantly there still are some).  Lil' Georgie will, no doubt, veto one of them.  Here's a link to the article.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050525/NEWS/505250318/1024/NEWS04

If the Christo-fascists remain in charge and you can't afford to fly to Seoul or Zurich, you may have the Bush "Culture of Life" to thank for your premature death!
::)