Stem cell research has a multitude of new promises to cure tons of diseases that afflict people every day. What do you guys think of the moral, ethical, and scientific implications of stem cell research and development?
Interesting question. I come down on the side of using such tech to benefit advances in medicene. We would be the ones to recieve such gains. On the moral side, if we had waited until everyone agreed it was ok to leave the trees we'd be extinct. Those trees eventually died. See earlier post on Oldest Humanoids.
I agree... Embryos that stem cells would be extracted from would be on the road to destructin anyways, so we wouldn't be harvesting them just to be spliced apart. So I think that primarily takes abortion out of the equasion. A hundred thousand embryos could cure diseases for MILLIONS of ill people. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
for it I fail to see the difference in people donating parts after they die in an accident and in stem cell research. If this can improve the quality of life for people with chronic and incurable (but treatable) diseases than the moral thing to do is to help these people out. I get sick to my heart when the religious crow about the sanctity of life while the homeless and jobless (the majority of which probably have some chronic problem) sleep in the locked doorways of vacant churches.
Who Pays The current problem with stem cell research is a typical one. Should the federal government be deciding whether or not stem cell research CAN be conducted in the first place AND who pays for it? The federal government has NO BUSINESS deciding this issue, just like they have NO BUSINESS making decisions on abortion. In fact, if it weren't for the unconstitutional regulations on abortion there would be no issue. As for who should PAY for scientific research - NOT taxpayers. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for research (or art, or any other cultural aspect) that they 1) do not approve of 2) do not directly benefit from.
Welcome to Sciforums, iszlq. May your posts be long and varied. As to who pays. Through out history, governments have funded major research. In the long run it has been the populace who benefited. But the returns for such research is either so limited or maybe not even a return visible at the time of the funding of the research that business and corporations have not been willing to tackle the expense for so little returns. Returns that are of no use to a business are the same as no return. After all if a business can not make a profit on their discovery then it is a black hole into which money was fed. As for the morality of the issue. I too do not believe that the government should be the one that decided what is right or wrong with the issue. Rather it should be left up to those who in the long run finance such endeavors. The public.
Public Funds Saying that the morality of the issue should be left up to the public that funds it isn't good enough because the public is too varied to reach a consensus on such things. That's the point of limiting the federal government. One thing that folks seem to forget about when the issue of the public rolls around is the difference between being FORCED to pay for something and paying for it willingly. There is a difference between charity and legal robbery. That the public eventually benefits from research that is "publicly funded" is irrelevent. It is also irrelevent that businesses may not find such research lucrative. Taking money forcibly from one group to give to another is still robbery even if the intentions are good. One argument that inevitably crops up is that the "public" votes for the tax. This takes us back to the need for small governments. The "public" votes are really MAJORITY rule and will necessarily leave some portion of the population paying for something they do not appreciate, use, or need. For a just society it is necessary to minimize this.
isziq ... On another forum I said that I could see where you're coming from, but after reading your two posts to this forum, I'm getting the idea that you're not only against Federal government, but also State government. And, being a little contradictory to boot. Example: Your comment, makes me wonder if you're taking the position that each taxpayer gets to decide what 'directly' benefits them. If so, it's completely unworkable even at the State level. Please clarify.
There are many issues that everyone does not agree on. That is the purpose of a majority in a vote. Not everyone will be satisfied no matter how it is presented. To try and satisfy all will leave none satisfied and the project (whatever it is) in premature limbo. Under such conditions nothing gets accomplished! I too have issues with the tax that I see come out of my paycheck! Also with the legality that gives the government the right to levy these taxes. However, pay them you will. I do enjoy the road system that was put into place by them every time I go to the store. But I fail to see where mandated control over the wetlands that takes away the property owners right to do with his property as he see fit without compensation is justified. This is indeed an example of laws gone too far and as you stated legal robbery. Small governments lead to larger wars in situations such as the continental United States. The haves against the have nots. It also breeds problems with the neighbors of such bordering areas. Look at how Florida was viewed during the last election for a president. Many will tell you it was robbery. But by their state laws it was correct. We are a larger public than one broken into small groups. It has its weaknesses and its strenghts. It is what it is and so shall be, right or wrong. As a last note I think this should be taken to another forum as we have wandered a good bit from the original topic.
A good Site Just want to tell everyone this site for everyone to check out http://i7.com.au/Home/0,,PDI7177,00.html It has from the basic to the current develpment.
