Absolutely. Government should only make decisions and take action where more than 75% of the population agree with the decision.
Don't be stupid. You know that's not what I'm saying at all. Of course there are neccessary decisions the government has to make that won't please everybody. Financing this particular research isn't one of them. There are other equally beneficial areas the government could put the money. They could even just not spend the money being as they would have to borrow it.
Why go out of your way to offend millions of people you've been elected to serve. I suppose you do it if you are convinced that your superior intellect gives you the right to act with a deaf ear to the opinions and desires of the masses.
I'm sorry, but while I agree that taxpayer money shouldn't be spent in direct opposition to what the general populace wants if it is at all possible, you have to realize that there are unhappy people in every situation. Everyone has a gripe with how money is currently being spent, has been spent and will be spent.
Part of living in a large society is recognizing that you will not always get your way. You live beside millions of other people with different needs and wants. The government has the tough job of spending money in what it sees as the greater good of the people that they are employed to serve. If you truly want to adopt a "you want it, you pay for it" attitude for everything, you are best served living alone somewhere. There is always going to be something that the average layperson is funding without fully supporting it in a large society like ours.
This in my opinion, is in the greater good category. It might not be universally supported (the reasons boggle my mind however) but it is potentially ground breaking stuff that enhances the lives of everyone.
Also, huge agreement with Thor earlier in differentiating the motivation of research. I think that most discoveries that greatly influence how we live are usually the result of "curiousity" research. It is much more rare to go after something directly in scientific research and acquire it. Instead, most discoveries are byproducts of other research. You never know what you will uncover when you are investigating something, and it is often something that you would never expect.
I guess where we differ is I don't think this area warrants the "greater good" distinction. Research is being funded in areas where embryoes are not being used and both government and private research is being done with these special stem cells in other countries. Surley you don't believe the potentual with this particular research out weighs other research avenues where money could potentually be spent. I think the money runs out long before the good canadates for grants do.
It's like the proposed by-pass around my little town. It has been in the works for 30 years. All the needed land was purchased over 20 years ago but, the government hasn't begun the project. Why? Because there is a strong minority opposition to it being built. The majority has always been in faviour but, perhaps not strong enough to influence the debate. The government with a limited budget and lots of meaningful projects just has chosen to do other equally beneficial projects.
The only diffrence between these two government decisions is that funding for embryo stem cell research has become a Right-Left issue. It should never have been one. And Obama should have chosen not to involve himself in this fight.
The government has the tough job of spending money in what it sees as the greater good of the people that they are employed to serve.
Yeah right.
More like the government loves their job of spending our money because they get to waste it on a bunch of useless stuff, and rack up HUGE credit card bills that they'll personally never have to repay.
The only diffrence between these two government decisions is that funding for embryo stem cell research has become a Right-Left issue. It should never have been one. And Obama should have chosen not to involve himself in this fight.
How about Bushie? Should he have left this fight alone as well, or was his meddling OK because it turned out how you liked it?
More like the government loves their job of spending our money because they get to waste it on a bunch of useless stuff, and rack up HUGE credit card bills that they'll personally never have to repay.
After that, good post.
I said it was their job, not that they excel at it.
I guess where we differ is I don't think this area warrants the "greater good" distinction.
Agree to disagree I guess. I rate potential medical breakthroughs pretty highly, others will have different priorities.
It is mostly the principle for me. I think we should be exploring as many different scientific avenues as we can, because frankly we have no idea which one of them will lead us somewhere. I just hate to see one being harassed endlessly which hinders its promise.
As for my blanket statement about exploring as many avenues as we can and the inevitable "there are some avenues that are best left untouched because of various moral issues etc." I agree to a point. I just don't think that stem cell research is such an issue.
How about Bushie? Should he have left this fight alone as well, or was his meddling OK because it turned out how you liked it?
Bushie simply chose not to fund that research because it was offensive to a vocal minority. Bush spent more money on stem cell research than Clinton did before him. He just didn't as a policy fund the controversal stuff.
The Media is the one who turned it into a wedge issue. They protrayed the research as a potentual wonder cure that would help Superman walk again and elliminate the need for wheel chairs. Supposedly if America didn't lead this charge other Nations would leave them in the dust.
In short; Bush didn't meddle in this. He simply kept America's wallet closed for research he personally found offensive as well as a considerable amount of Americans.
I notice the OP still hasn't changed the thread title.
Nothing like a little sensationalism to raise emotions.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
I personally question the need for the space program. It's extremely costly, dangerous, and awful for the environment. Surprisingly useless to us as a species too. Why do we feel the need, this last half-century, to escape this beautiful earth?
I personally question the need for the space program. It's extremely costly, dangerous, and awful for the environment. Surprisingly useless to us as a species too. Why do we feel the need, this last half-century, to escape this beautiful earth?
Too many annoying people.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to MacGr3gor For This Useful Post:
I notice the OP still hasn't changed the thread title.
Nothing like a little sensationalism to raise emotions.
I'm the OP. Is the title that big of a deal?
Stem cell research is a pretty hot topic regardless of the title. Not exactly sure if your an opponent of stem cell research or just a stickler for accurate titles.
But I digress, I agree the title should have been longer. And the brevity of factual information could appear, to one as astute as yourself, as being sensational.
But sensationalism was not my original goal.
Believe it or not, but I was only trying to keep the title brief and originally wrote "Stem Cell Research" but then upon further thought added "Human-Embryonic" as I felt my original title was misleading and I didn't want to mislead anyone.
The title still didn't sound right to me, but I posted it anyways as I thought it would be an intriguing topic ripe for discussion. Why? I don't know, but my lawyer is looking into the medication that I'm currently taking.
Upon further reflection, I realize that I should have mentioned Gov't Funded. As I feel those two words would have prevented folks, much like yourself, from clicking on the tread and not only having to read the article but take the time to leave such a pithy complaint.
Not much for me to do, but apologize and if please let me know what you want as a title and I'll change it. I think that there is no need to discuss the fact that vulgar titles will be deemed unsuitable.
For best results, post it here and PM me with it as well.
I personally question the need for the space program. It's extremely costly, dangerous, and awful for the environment. Surprisingly useless to us as a species too. Why do we feel the need, this last half-century, to escape this beautiful earth?
the ignorance of this statement is astounding. There are so many technologies born out of the space program that impact every day life. Medicine, robotics, communication, transportation, defence, etc
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Canada 02 For This Useful Post:
I personally question the need for the space program. It's extremely costly, dangerous, and awful for the environment. Surprisingly useless to us as a species too. Why do we feel the need, this last half-century, to escape this beautiful earth?
Manned spaceflights are too expensive and unless we're willing to send on missons of no return, it should be shelved. I say keep sending those probes out though. To me, it's not about escaping the earth, but more about seeing what's out there.
I find the photos of distant planets and galaxies that are sent back worth every penny.
I personally question the need for the space program. It's extremely costly, dangerous, and awful for the environment. Surprisingly useless to us as a species too. Why do we feel the need, this last half-century, to escape this beautiful earth?
Oh give me a break...you are not that stupid.
Do I really have to list the numerous advancements from the space program?
Since there is a limited amount of government money that can be committed to research and no shortage of worthwhile projects to invest in why put money in a controversial area. Government money is actually tax payer money and should be used with consideration of whoes money is being spent. I don't know what the percentage of Americans oppose this stem cell research funding but, even if it is 25% that is a huge chunk of taxpayers.
If the pro research crowd is so certain that this is the holy grail they can invest or donate their own money.
Within the scientific community there is almost no controversy.
Its all outside forces, ie politics and religion that are treating it as such.
I personally question the need for the space program. It's extremely costly, dangerous, and awful for the environment. Surprisingly useless to us as a species too. Why do we feel the need, this last half-century, to escape this beautiful earth?
Instead of getting angry at this statement, here's a nice 4 min explanation of why we need Nasa, by Neil deGrasse Tyson astrophysicist.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Within the scientific community there is almost no controversy.
Its all outside forces, ie politics and religion that are treating it as such.
Yes well the scientific community isn't self supporting. It requires either financial investment dollars or tax dollars. Without outside forces there is no research or scientific community.
simply chose not to fund that research because it was offensive to a vocal minority. Bush spent more money on stem cell research than Clinton did before him. He just didn't as a policy fund the controversal stuff. 
