Are you in favor of Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research?
I'm pleasantly surprised at the number of Yes responses. I think the federal government needs to fund more scientific research in general, and stem cell research could do a lot to help a lot of people.
9 times out of 10, if the question starts with "are you in favor of federal funding for," my answer is no
that's a great way to get nothing achieved.
A 15 year old boy I know was paralyzed, because of stem-cells he can walk again.
No - but not for religious reasons but because I don't believe in federally funding almost everything. Getting the government involved always messes it up. It costs more and in the end, "we the people" are screwed.
That's not true
Well that sort of thinking is exactly why we are falling behind other countries when it comes to medical research.
Really? My way of thinking has put us behind? Just my way of thinking? There's no other reason? And the government NEVER screws up things it gets involved in? Never? Really? What universe are you living in?
stem cells can end waiting lists for organs and it can end organ rejection. now that we can get them from other places than embryos, this should be a non issue. we will get more return from this investment than in "defense".
Nope. We actually have the ability to turn a normal skin cell INTO a stem cell now, am I don't see why we don't pursue THAT research. In the end of the day, a zygote is a human life we end. I think that life is important
that works still be considered stem cell research. . .
I'm not in favor of any government funding that doesn't directly relate to commerce and national defense.
Provides for the common good. I'm for spending that benefits everyone.
Private investment would lead to faster and more efficient results. The facts are the Feds are inefficient, corrupt, and debt burdened.
Then where are the cures? Why is it that everything a private company develops is only treatment?
Why is it that depression medication from EVERY SINGLE pharmaceutical co. treats my depression and then makes me want to kill myself as a side effect?
"Private investment would lead to faster and more efficient results."
Links? Any proof or backing for this claim?
That link did absolutely nothing to the claim. It said health care is a vibrant sector for further private equity investment... But that's not what you're claim said. It said private could do it better. Where in that link does it say that?
The truth is private companies do almost everything better than governments, governments are corrupt and will throw lavish parties and waste money because it grows on trees.
That's a completely unsubstantiated claim. You have ANY proof for ANY of what you're saying?
I'll wait here.
Sure thanks for waiting:
Because ONE government agency misuses funds then ALL of government funding must be bad... Lmao, ok. two can play this game:
-Enron and the 2008 financial collapse as a result of abusive financial tactics
I guess all private funding must be bad!
And sure, it's not just one that's been caught... But I can sound off a never-ending list of private entities that have abused, mismanaged, and totally screwed their customers proving how bad they are... I'm just using the logic you're giving me lol
Here are some examples from your state.
Please do list off the corrupt private enterprises.
I'm not. Unlike you, I'm intelligent enough to at least know that there's bad in both and no one is clean. They're both corrupt. I'm not the one that generalized ALL government funding as bad bc of a few examples of corruption. You were.
Furthermore, this is getting pretty stupid. You don't have proof for your claim "Private investment would lead to faster and more efficient results."
Just admit it. Either way, I'm moving on.
I never said corporations were perfect or that government spending under certain circumstances isn't reasonable. My conclusion is only that this is one of the situations where the people do it better.
Embryos not necessary to obtain stem cells = no
Definitely yes. And I'd say publicly funded. Private funding could easily lead to outside pressure to come to a 'result' that would benefit the bottom line of a given corporation.
Adult stem cells? Meh.
Embryonic? Hell no. Murder is wrong. The ends does not justify the means.
This is where I usually flake out from my fellow Libertarians. Funding research on a federal level has led to so many great things. But any (L) will tell you, it's also led to some pork and clashes in ideology. The pros, however outweigh the cons.
Get: why can't private organizations fund it?
Yes, I am in favor of it. I think there is so much good that would come out of it. I I am also in favor of private funding. A little healthy competition.
Government research funding has contributed IMMENSELY more to our society than private funding. That's just a fact. Why wouldn't we fund this?
The return we get from science funding is off the charts. It's one of the few governmental investments that really speak for themselves.
I'm in favor of scientific research. If they have a real goal and can meet it and it will do some good, fund it.
Yes I'd support it. Science funding is probably one of the best ways to spend, even when it's not immediately obvious. And the overall spending is pretty meager part of the budget anyway.
Maybe we can take some of those farm subsidies and oil subsidies and put it towards this. Then it wouldn't be wasting additional money
It's blank, right? I'm not the only one seeing that?
You are not the only one, NOT seeing things.
Torfin wins, game over, time to go home guys.
It's research for the future. More and more illnesses pop up everyday and looking at the amount of people on the waiting-list for organs is daunting. This is a step for a whole new era of medical science for the solutions to the most difficult questions and conditions.
Wouldn't it be better to research WHY more illnesses are popping up every day? I know it's more profitable to research treatments and "cures" but I'm pretty confident that prevention would be better...
Stem cell PRIVATELY funded, yes.
No wonder why we're dying in debt. It's ridiculous to assume the federal government should pay for everything, especially with its record of inefficiencies.
Oh, yeah, that tiny percentage of the federal budget that goes to science is really burning a hole in the country's finances.
Arcto: it's not just stem cell research it's a multitude of projects with little that end up building a bridge to no where. The government is corrupt, inefficient, and debt burdened; let free market competition fund these medical advances.
I'm pretty sure a huge part of the budget goes towards research, development, test, and evaluation of science and technology..
No, all this country does is spend spend spend. We are broke, and people still want to twist the knife on our struggling economy by spending more and more.
I'm a conservative in favor of stem-cell research. I'm NOT in favor of federal funding. The gov't doesn't have the money for that. Let it be done by private industry.
The federal government takes in $2.5 trillion a year. We have the money. We just spend it on useless, unjust wars in the Middle East.
How can you say we have the money when we are still working in a deficit? If we do have some leftover money laying around, how about we give it back to the taxpayers?
The federal government takes in some $3.5b, spending is about $4.5b. Defense is $0.5 all inclusive. This chart is really good
How do you explain the sequester then? If there's enough money where is it and why haven't they given it back to those of us who pay taxes. There is no surplus!!!!!!!
That was for veritas...
And I'm not arguing about the war. I, too, think it's useless and shouldn't be going on. But that's not the biggest chunk of money that is spent. Are a look at welfare. Now there's some wasted money!!!!!!!
Ugh. *take a look....
Why should we spend money in anything, then? We're broke after all, right? Why pay cops and firefighters? Why pave roads? We can't afford border control, were broke, right? That logic can be used on everything the government does and is therefore…
…completely unreasonable to use as a reason not to spend on something.
I believe the constitution provides for the common defense and protection of the country and people. Thus, police and firefighters are constitutional. Science research is not. If we went back to a smaller gov't and paying for the necessary things....
And the DOD is a MASSIVE chunk of money. What because it doesn't encapsulate the entirety of the budget, we're not allowed to cut it? Congress just paid millions for Abrams tanks that the military themselves said they don't need. But that's ok to…
... such as those things you mentioned, we would actually have more money available! What a concept--- spending less than you take in. You personally can't spend your way out of debt. Why does the gov't think they can? It doesn't work!!! EVER!!!
…but saving lives through research isn't? Isn't saving lives for the good of the "general welfare," a goal explicitly stated in our constitution.
Again, I agree that military spending is out of control and needs to be cut back and reorganized.
Your logic only holds water if every single thing the government spends money on is better dollar for dollar than spending it on stem cell research, which is self-evidently a crazy notion.
I said in my original post that I am FOR stem cell research. I just don't like the gov't funding it when there are other programs that are far more important like Ssocial security, Medicare, etc.
When those programs are fully funded and not in danger of completely collapsing, when the budget has been balanced, when there is a surplus, ask the question again. I'll probably have a different answer. Right now we can't afford it.
We clearly can afford it. There are things we can't afford, but this isn't one of them. Cut military spending before cutting stem cell research. Why does science always have to be the first to go? We have the money. Cut the other things first.
The federal government 1) cannot afford to pay for this or many other things. 2) should not be involved in this area, except to facilitate an environment that does not impede private companies from pursuing private research.
1) yes we can 2) wrong. Just plain wrong.
Hmmm…pay for tanks and munitions…or life-saving research. Death and destruction or life and healthcare. The military industrial complex or the betterment of humanity.
Tough spending decisions, I know.
Now, now. I have no problem with a strong military.
I don't get riled very often over stuff like this. I'm about as center of the political spectrum as you can get. I'm all for common sense use of anything that can help mankind. There are a few hot button issues that I care deeply about.
And I think those that follow me know what they are.
I'm Christian and if using cells to help many other people it's worth it.
Yes! Yes! Oh god, yes! People have no idea how much good it can actually do.
Damn. Just reading that got me excited. Then, I saw your name.
Sorry... I have that effect on people...
Evolution is just a theory. Homosexuality is a choice. Climate change isn't real. Carbon dating is BS. Abortion is murder. Rape victims can't get pregnant. Fracking isn't bad for the environment. Now life-saving research is immoral. Me? Angry? No…
Well science actually supports that abortion is murder but whatever...
I don't believe that any practice that steps on the religious beliefs of another should be funded by tax payers. You can't force people to pay for something that they don't believe in. If you ask me roll with it. I'm all for anything that helps us advance medically. But not federally funded.
And then Jesus said, "don't you fvckin' federally fund stem cell research."
That's the beauty of having a government that doesn't endorse any religion. Religion has NO business in government, period, end of story.
The prohibition against the establishment of a state religion does not, in my mind obligate the federal govt to abide by the beliefs of any one faith.
Not any one faith. Every and all faiths.
And what happens when two faiths hold beliefs that are mutually exclusive?
How about this: if you object to its use, you don't have to receive its life-saving benefits.
That's fair! If you could designate use of tax dollars I would be all for it.
Ha ha ha! Oh, how this EXACT scenario is going to play out. The irony is...well...ironic.
@jimi I'll register as a Republican the day any of the people who voted no actually deny themselves the care that stem cells allow. They'll whine and then have their saved by the thing they whine about.
Lol. They would be lined up, begging for the medicine.
If it could only work that way. I'd like my tax dollars to not have to go towards people who get cancer from smoking, since I don't, but there's no way to control that.
I have no problem with it. If it can lead to things that cure or curb human suffering, I'm all for it.
That's why we love you, baby!
Thanks dude! By the way, happy early BDay!
You re the first to mentioned it.Thank you!
Happy B-Day! When is it?
Thank you. I just wish Ben was still alive to celebrate. And, if we could score a fat bag of Washington's bomb-ass Patriot Purple, that would be perfect.
I'm gonna make some White House honey porter before long.
..embryo, fertilized & kept in a Petri dish or the equivalent.
oops, sorry, guys. wrong place. happy early b-day, rj.
Why? Did the government get bored of funding conventional abortion?
Oh, good one.
humor is a good way to cope with moral rot, is it not?
I don't see how that would be considered abortion. Care to explain your reasoning? And I'm being sincere because I want to understand; I'm not trying to be difficult.
No, it's not. I am totally against humor. In all forms. Especially sarcasm!
It would depend upon whether one recognizes the embryo as a human life. If one does, then destroying it (not to be confused with failing to use it) would be destroying a life. Thus far all attempts to argue life does not begin at conception have
Of course, the fact that they've all failed, does not automatically mean life does start at conception. But since a born baby is clearly a human life, and since there is no salient demarcation point between conception and birth, I tend to believe it
Moral rot? Are you kidding? Harvesting something that could potentially cure cancer for millions from one source, moral rot? Really?
It begins at conception.
So, after conception, is it murder to perform and amputation? Is it murder to kill cancer cells?
I would guess its murder to slaughter cattle for dinner. I'm in big trouble then.
Generally the term 'murder' is reserved for beings that have the intrinsic worth of a human. Animals kill other animals in the jungles all the time, we don't call it murder, neither do we consider those to be morally bad acts.
My wife and I are doing IVF now. There will be embryos that are not used due to many different issues. I don't see how being able to use them for another benefit versus just not using them at all and discarding them is any different.
Furthermore, you seem to exhibit outrage at the failure to act on what is the mere potential for a cancer cure. Does is not seem strange to you that you aren't outraged at the active destruction of the potential for a human?
Whoa, whoa, whoa....where's brrrrrrrrrrrrrr? I understand, I'm don't always respond quickly, I'm known for that. But seriously, how in your biological universe do equate fertilized egg with embryo with fetus, with baby?
But not say a human leg or arm or nose tip is not a person.
Seriously, this is why if you can't grasp basic science, stop letting us know what your opinions are. About....anything.
You can donate the embryos, or you can freeze them. Both options permit you to not destroy them.
Moral culpability only exists when you actively do something.
Whatever. Embryos die everyday. Hundreds of thousands, everyday. Those are not babies.
Your unique interpretation of biology is the problem. I invite you to consider that.
Lets utilize the SOHcratic approach, excuse the pun.
Do you believe a baby that is just born is a live human deserving of all the protections that all humans are ordinarily granted?
I'm not the one who decided that they didn't want the fetus, it's not my body! I don't have to answer for that, it's not my business. If the cells can be used to further the good of the many, the sacrifice of the one is warranted.
If a baby is born then its murder, plain and simple.
Some can't be donated because of chromosomal issues and freezing them and leaving them does no good. You have to pay for them to freeze it, and if this is our last child, I wouldn't pay them to keep it. I would rather it be used for good research.
Alright. Do you agree that a sperm and an egg by themselves, do not deserve those same protections?
How many kids have you flushed down the toilet? Don't lie!
@RJ If all of our bodies contain stem cells, what makes those unsuitable for these purposes. Not saying they are suitable, just askin' why they aren't.
Veritas, im pretty sure that embryonic stem cells have the potential to be many more types of cells than adult stem cells. This is why adults cant grow new brain cells or nerve cells, but babies can initially grow them.
Zack's summary is well-stated. Adult stem cells are a more differentiated cell than embryonic stem cells.
Oh ok. That makes sense. So embryonic cane generate (regenerate) while adult ones can only replace?
Nvmd! I just read that adults actually DO grow new brain cells and nerve cells. I have always heard that they dont grow back ever, but that is not so.
Oh geeez. Ok, you two stop!
V: adult stem cells are already differentiated. That changes everything.
Z: the scope of "re growing" brain cells MUST be put in context. Literally, a couple of cells. Not much.
Ok. That makes sense. Because every cell in our body has the DNA coding for every part of our body, but only embryonic stem cells can act on that potential? The rest is just cell replication?
Thats true. You cannot replace large chunks of missing brain matter.
@brrrrrrrrr, you are correct about life.
I agree as well, but believe that if a baby is going to be aborted anyways, they might as well be utilized for a greater good rather than wasted and forgotten. Dipping to such measures as killing a baby for the sole purpose of using its cells is...
absolutely barbaric and cruel to me, though. You should never do evil simply for the greater good. As long as the baby will be aborted no matter what I support the usage of embryonic stem cells.
What is evil? Is it something that disagrees with your perspective? Or is there inherit evil in the world? Does evil exist in everyone potentially?
Goodness! Those are extremely thought provoking questions and it is too late answer those in detail. Basically, evil is something that I believe is immoral, malicious, and harmful. Evil is present in the world and we all have the potential to do evil
zack - Do you understand that the "baby" being "aborted" is an almost microscopic ball of 50-150 cells, 3-5 days old? There is no abortion - a fetus old enough to be aborted would not be composed of embryonic stem cells. This is a very early...
Susanr, noble effort but can't you see that science has no place in this discussion?
That's because it's not science which determines what it means to be a human deserving of human dignity.
Arguments such as 'its a clump of cells' rely upon the false assumption that 2 things must be different because they don't look the same.
which is a shallow and a painfully inept attempt.
What do stem cells do? And his it helpful to find out more about them? Some one comment and tell me
Stem cells are the "beginning" of human life. After conception, stem cells form which then "morph" into other types of cells( heart, liver, etc).
Using stem cells we can cure diseases, disorders, etc. Cancer could be a thing of the past.
RJ could give a better explanation
Stem cells make stems. You could never have enough stems.
Seriously, they are a generic cell, like a fertilized egg, that has the potential to be changed into any specific type of cell: skin, liver, heart muscle, kidney, nerve (!) , etc.
We start as a single egg. But the cells divide and divide and divide....and they also change. Different tissues serve different functions. Stem cells are a basic precursor that we can differentiate (key word there!) into other tissue types.
It's a great investment, definitely.
Investing in stem cell research will create more money in the long run.
Spend a dollar now receive 5 later.
If you think it's such a good investment, then I suggest you invest your own money instead.
My investments would be nothing compared to government investments. The government would also be able to do more with the return money.
The government has no money, it's our money. I think it's a damn fine way to spend it.
Only because its an absolute necessity. It's really a private industry matter.
Private industry matter? What they discover could potentially help us nationwide. That's hardly private industry.
Everybody should say they are in favor of this. It could help lead to the cute for making middle-aged uncles stay erect with their teenage nephews during intimate times
"Are you in favor of Federal funding for-"
I wish there was a way of restricting you to only dirt roads
Every single Republican...
That's a good one. I agree most of the time with that answer, but I think there are a few that are worthwhile.
Lol guy can't come up with an actual rebuttal so he just resorts to a witty joke.
It's destructive, right?
Yeah. Like a giant eagle that flies around and craps on your windshield.
How big of an eagle are we talking here?
Like...big. Really big. Like, you are going to need a shovel to scrape it off.
That's a big eagle
Wow. Really hope my windshield can stand up to the impact.
La Te Do
Not yet. There are more important things that the Feds need to focus on.
I am not opposed to Federal funding of stem cell research. There is significant success with research not involving embryonic cells. That is the essence of the survey question.
Like...best ever life-time health plans for every congress-person and their spouses. Forget everyone else.
Evo: yeah I mean I'm not either but I don't think there's enough money nor will there be in the near future to find research like that
Rj: I agree with the essence of your comment, but stop trolling on everyone's comments
Trolls gotta troll, that how trolls roll.
Dom.... I agree this type funding is not an essential function of a government. The question was specific to embryonic cells. Plus, the discussion on how to extract the public presence from these functions would take time and many careful steps.
I'm just saying that it shouldn't be on the list of priorities quite yet. If it was privately funded then I think it might turn out better, especially if great things come out of it. Could be good for people and business.
No, because the federal government has neither the authority nor the money to do it.
Really? No money? And you're a constitutional scholar who understands more about it that other Americans, including those decades, even centuries ago?
Don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back.
Well RJ the question becomes how long do you want to ignore the debt problem. The longer you wait the more painful getting a balanced budget will become CBO says that the debt will be 90% of our GDP by 2020.
Not embryonic, which haven't been proven to be useful yet, however adult stem cells I obviously all for, and try have been very useful and have a lot of potential for.
Wait, what? Hasn't been proven....are you a scientist?
Hasn't even proven as they haven't been able to use embryonic stem cells to help with disease. However they are using adult stem cells to help/cure disease to this day.
Circular argument goes in circles.
Hasn't been proven . . .therefore don't research it . . . therefore no proof . . . therefore don't research it . . . therefore no proof . . . therefore don't research it . . . therefore no proof . . . therefore . .
I did just read an article that promised animals could be used to grow certain human organs using stem cell technology. So if thats the case and those living with certain health issues could be saved hell to the yes!
I am not in favor of it
A fundamental premise in business finance. Look it up.
We spend a some money up front. We make more in return. This concept is why rich people rich and you are not.
And also why the government is broke, because they don't look at cost vs benefits.
Yes, so broke. We are totally un-operable. The facts surrounding us so bolster your claims.
Seriously, are you guys willingly going out of your way to be wrong? Fact-check what you are claiming. You are flat-out wrong.
I have an education in finance and have worked many years in finance. Thanks I understand ROI.
Bravo Tomm. Bravo.
Start using that education and stop parroting S from pundits.
RJ, I did not need to Google it. I have study economic for decades and traded currencies. You are the person spinning around this site claiming to be the expert in everything. You are the negative person.
Oh, yeah. I'm the negative one. By saying things that blatantly and obviously fail in the light of reality.
Yes, you say things that blatantly and obviously fail in the light of reality. Thank you for your admission.
RJ just to get your position straight: the federal government should fund embryonic stem cell research because it has the necessary resources? Any other reasons?
Rlands: he admitted further down that he works in this field. Wonder why he wants us to pay....
Bwaaa ha ha ha! Oh, the conspiracy theorists are out tonight folks!!
Yeah, there it is. The attack on the guy who actually knows what he's talking about, unlike most of the rest of us. Since he knows this stuff, he must have an ulterior motive. Yeah, money must be it. He's not spending his time here...
..explaining stuff so people can actually UNDERSTAND, no, it has to be for personal gain. Because it's so effective talking to all of us; yeah, that'll get Congress of their butts.
tomm, honestly, I'm surprised.
Susan: there's no conspiracy in this. It's just a question of getting support for your own field, everyone does it. One of the problems in the US.
He may know about stem cells, but that is not the question. The question is if the federal ...
...government should fund it or not. I say no, it's that simple.
Susan - it's because he is being a troll instead of explaining his side. He belittles those who don't agree with him.
I was actually on his side when I read his initial posts explaining stem cells, but as I read further I saw him being a jerk
And talking about attacks, I will claim he is the one to attack. I'm just trying to make the argument I don't want my taxes to go to this, which it looks like others agree in based on likes. I'm not the one trying to ridicule the comments.
I still side with stem cell research, but I don't support the way rj is going about it. The sad thing is that he could enlighten some people, but it's more likely that he will turn them off.
I never even got a straight answer...I'm just curious!
To the guy saying our government is broke (HA- couldn't hear you over the sound of all the money flying around to the chick that suggested he's trying to push an agenda, I have 3 words for you:
Human Genome Project
Can we stop with the stupid retarded "the USA is bankrupt and doesn't have any money" bllsht? You are not correct. The premise that we run our country like you run your finances is not correct.
You are flat out wrong and are doing nothing more than parroting BS you regurgitate from listening to pundits. It is utterly false.
You're in denial.
No, you're misinformed. And have a weird predilection to gravitate toward negativity.
And you're delusional
rj1969, speaking of being wrong, where is the link showing the pegged yuan to dollar?
The dollar was also once pegged to the gold standard. Doesn't mean it will stay that way.
You could have easily looked that up for yourself.
Wait, what was that again?
tomm, I understand that.... rj1969 is such an "expert" on everything. RJ stated the yuan is pegged to the dollar. Just want him/her to prove it.
Evo, I shouldn't have to "prove it" to you. You should check nothing's and see if your claims are true. Just google it and read.
Nice try RJ, the peg you reference is not an official agreement with the US government. It is their scheme to make their products "cheaper" for US consumers. Keep trying.
Huh? Pegging to the dollar, as a mater of practice, doesn't have to be formalized, declared, or legal. Seriously, what is wrong with you? Do you go out of your way to be stupid? Read up on how China manipulates their currency. It's not hard.
Thanks evoecon. Agree that currency peg is decided by China and will only stay as long as they see an advantage.
RJ logic "do not be concerned with the debt, it will naturally disintegrate through divine intervention. Keep spending, do not concern yourselves with your children's welfare."
You realize our national debt was twice as high after WWII as it is right now?
Do you really think we "payed off our debts" after WWII?
Where do you think it went?
as a percentage of GDP it was higher, but that was a different time America was the only intact economy and had large tracts of land available for buildup. That debt still led to inflation in the 70's.
I am in favor of private funding for stem cell research.
OUR government doesn't have any money!! Everything we say yes to means that much more debt or taxes.
When will it end?!
I answered yes, but in principle, this is the best response ... The debt isn't an imaginary thing. It's going to significantly lower the quality of our grandchildren's lives and leave them with an unfair burden.
Does the debt really matter? Just saying...
Most research funding pales compared to the huge defense and social budgets.
That's where we should tighten the belt.
Take a look at our politicians' salaries, David. Does it seem like our government can't afford this research?
How many graduate research grants could have been funded by Obama's 100 million dollar African Vacation?
Stop spending money!!!!!
Great idea. Maybe regress to 19th century standards while we are at it.
Why is it the job of the federal government to spend money on this? If stem cells work so well private companies can do the research and pay to invest in it.
Because it is an investment that returns more money than we spend on it, all the while. Improves the.ives of people everywhere, including Americans.
Understand the concept, but when has the governments investments ever been profitable? At least recently ( although u did vote yes).