Jump to content

Abortion


artik

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 220
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

it's real funny to me that these people love to call them 'embryos'

 

they are not embryos yet.

this is partly why science/scientists are so misunderstood.

people literally have no idea what they are talking about.

physician, libertarian, or not, that doesn't necessarily mean he understands the research

physicians are not always researchers, and they definitely don't always know all

 

and again, if all this shit applies to stem cell research because government money helps fund scientific research

then why has private industry not been able to donate their leftover shit from IVF

(the creation of human life which ends up getting thrown in the trash for right now because it is illegal to donate it)

why have private companies not cropped up to fill this void?

 

why is the arbitrary creation of human life for profit ok? even when it might get tossed in the trash later..

while stem cell research for the preservation of existing human life is not ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have no clue about ivf and the like.

 

i think the whole debate goes back to the 'when life begins' deal. pro life think life begins at conception, the pro choice side, rejects this. maybe its more of a question of speaking biologically or ethically... im not sure, but i dont believe this to the object of discussion on stem cell research. the object of discussion is whether the feds should be funding, controlling or regulating it. which i answer with a big resounding NO.

 

i posted those articles not to talk about embryo's, but to drive home the dangers of federal funding and its corollary, federal control. of course, Block's article is just a big long rant about a compromise, but still.

 

from my view, i think this is a fundamental fight. i think that the liberals are currently getting what they deserve from bush and co, the same way the republicans are gonna get what they deserve when hillary gets elected in 08. the liberals have, since lincoln, made the constitution a malleable living document, that is to be trampled at the will of the centralized democracy. it has been made so loose, that it is meaningless. and they never stopped to realize that 2 can play that game. they made the bed, and bush is sleeping in it. which is the whole reason, why it is essential that the american people reexamine just exactly what role they want the federal government to be in thier lives. it is my position that if the rule of law was followed there would not be the massive precedent to trash the constitution, i.e. violation of civil liberties, undeclared wars, and on down the line.

 

as far as the private industry/government subsidies arguments... that the private sector simply cannot do this because they dont have enough money... etc etc. im uncomfortable with this.

profit is one hell of a motivator. it is the reason why america has the highest living standards, etc etc. it is in the best interest of people seeking profit, to find a market for things. if there is a market for helping people by way of stem cell, there is no doubt, private industry will take over. problems arise however, when you have the victim-hood type mindset that was created with the various social programs and subsidies courtesy of our government.

in a post above homeboy can say it better than i can:

 

"Federal funding of medical research guarantees the politicization of decisions about what types of research for what diseases will be funded. Scarce tax resources are allocated according to who has the most effective lobby, rather than on the basis of need or even likely success. Federal funding also causes researchers to neglect potential treatments and cures that do not qualify for federal funds. Medical advancements often result from radical ideas and approaches that are scoffed at initially by the establishment. When scientists become dependent on government funds, however, they quickly learn not to rock the boat and stick to accepted areas of inquiry. Federal funds thus distort the natural market for scientific research."

 

"When we insist on imposing one-size-fits-all social policies determined in Washington, we invariably make millions of Americans very angry. Again, the constitutional approach to resolving social issues involves local, decentralized decision-making. This approach is not perfect, but it is much better than pretending Congress possesses the magical wisdom to serve as the nation’s moral arbiter."

 

the arguments that stem cell research will not exist without government funding remind me of the outrageous arguments that our economy will catastrophically collapse if illegal immigration is halted. in this case, facts point out that the highest concentration of illegal workers is in agriculture. in this field, less than 25% of the workers are illegals. i fail to see how the economy will collapse... but i digress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

research would only be motivated by profit

rather than by the pursuit of knowledge

 

you really think comanies are willing to pour billions into research

that will not yield profit?

 

because as i stated, what i do, has absolutely zero to do with making money

which is why no one except the feds provide more than 90% of our money

you think the university has the cash to fund our lab?

hell no, my boss writes grants to pay his own fucking salary.

 

is any company interested in what we do?

no, they want to sell us shit.

 

this is the problem

getting the government out of it means research goals are decided not on merit . but instead, whether it is profitable

 

also, diseases do not have lobby power within the NIH

there are disparities in funding toward diseases that effect the rich v those that effect the poor

but it is not of a major impact on science as a whole.

congress does not decide who gets the money

teh National Institute of Health, again, my peers, nmot elected officials

decide who gets the funding

 

that guy makes it sound like abunch of congressman sit around and decide whether the fifteen alzheimer's research centers are getting money

that is not how it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"research would only be motivated by profit

rather than by the pursuit of knowledge"

 

i feel your concern, but it may not always be the case.

the mises institute (http://www.mises.org) is a totally private college and im quite sure that they are not soley interested in making money. they are solely interested in spreading truth.

 

"you really think comanies are willing to pour billions into research

that will not yield profit?"

 

this is a true point.

 

"that guy makes it sound like abunch of congressman sit around and decide whether the fifteen alzheimer's research centers are getting money

that is not how it works."

 

you may be right, but the feds and its 'elected' officials vote on whether they are going to allocate any money. this creates more dependence on the government. but in the end, i personally feel this is nothing that the individual states and the private sector cant work out, with out the feds fooling around with it. if the 10th amendment was followed, more people would be happy. more people would have true self government. more liberty would be present.

if we still had apportioned taxes, massachussetts could with-hold its taxes that would go to pay for the iraq war. alabama could with hold any more that goes to pay for abortions. with this system, the tax money that is taken, will be used for something the people believe it, not something they detest.

 

in short, i hear your concerns.

i know you werent intentionally trying to talk about 'non profits' but i think this goes down to our basic differences in opinion and belief. i think any unprovoked aggression on someone (like say, taking property/money at govt gun point) is wrong. governments do not create money. they simply distribute it. wealth is not created out of thin air. governments with thier subsidies, handouts etc etc, create vast amounts of waste. note reports during katrina of the government buying 300$ claw hammers. this is our tax money at work. they have a totally different mindset. whereas, the average worker wants to cut fat, make things more efficient, increase production, and make more money, the government, gets a certain 'budget' that they must meet in order to get the same or more funding next year. with this there is huge amounts of wasted money. you have, for instance guys on the county pay roll making 34.00$ an hour to literally work 4 weeks a year. believe me, i know quite a few. not increasing funding inside the beltway is called a cut. i swear, only in Dc.

 

this isnt directly related to you, but the whole 'non profit' thing is a play on words. all this means is they cant show any 'profit' at the end of the year and they have to give a portion of thier proceeds to some sort of 'good cause.' some of the owners and workers of 'non profits' make 6 digit salaries. instead of showing a 'profit' they have the company pay for vacations, exuberent salaries, gas, food, etc etc.

in essence we could have one hell of a racket going if we started a non profit for say, car donations.

we could accept donations of old or unwanted cars. people would give the cars to us. they get to write it off on thier taxes. we simply fix the cars, sell them, and give our measily 10% or so to our 'charity.' this charity could be some thing like:

me selling my 50 foot yacht to the 'non profit,' drawing a double salary from the till to pay for expenses, then have to draw another salary for taking 'needy kids' (my son and his friends? )out on fishing trips!

the rest of the money we simply make up in distorted salaries and the like.

 

sorry for the tangent, but i just wanted to point out that sometimes non profits can be even more evil than some wack job ceo's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

johns hopkins is a private university doood.

any university that doesn't have ..State.. or University of... in the title is a private university.

that university you mention does not seem to do medical research

do you know how much it costs for us to make discoveries about ciliary function in the human body?

millions. literally.

we spend about 25K on gene sequencing reagents EVERY SIX MONTHS

and that is a small fraction of our operating costs.

and trust me, it aint cuz we spending that shit on $300 hammers.

 

the government says, ok, we'll do 5 billion on research this year.

then the NIH doles it all out, poring over peer reviewed grants

i see every step of this process.

and i know people who missed the funding cut because dubya cut the budget back

and they don't work here anymore.

one of my coworkers is going back to japan later this year. because of that shit

and the neurological stuff he was working on..well, we don't know who's goign to continuee it

if anyone.

 

and yeah, i know the whole nonprofit thiing is just a way out of paying taxes.

if we had to rely on charitable foundations and 'nonprofits' for our cash, we'd be fucked.

 

meh

my point being, while i see what you are saying about private funding states rights and the like

it'll be hard to get to that, from where we are

and it would require sacrifice and loss to get there.

 

that IVF shit is nuts though

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/07/souls_on_ice.html

 

seriusly, check it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"ohns hopkins is a private university doood.

any university that doesn't have ..State.. or University of... in the title is a private university.

that university you mention does not seem to do medical research

do you know how much it costs for us to make discoveries about ciliary function in the human body?

millions. literally.

we spend about 25K on gene sequencing reagents EVERY SIX MONTHS

and that is a small fraction of our operating costs.

and trust me, it aint cuz we spending that shit on $300 hammers."

 

i was in no way drawing a line between JH and 300 hammers.... i didnt mean for it to come across that way. my point was merely to illustrate that government style collectivist programs are very wasteful.

sorry for the lack of clarification on the mises institute, what i MEANT to say about them being private, is that they take no government handouts, take no forms of pell grants, financial aid, etc etc. in any form. my point was that this totally 'free' mises institute isnt motivated by profit... they are motivated by spreading truth, and that just maybe, its possible for scientific research to exist without massive amounts of federal funds, and actually accomplish something.

 

as far as handouts, subsidies, funding, aid, i'll be totally honest with you, with the current system in place and not my ideal system, i'd be much more apt to spend money on the US and not foreign countries. however, i'd be doing my beliefs a total disservice if i supported anything that is unconstitutional. i support aid and subsidies, but in the form of keeping more money in the hands of citizens and out of the government's.

 

i'll check out that ivf link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if the government pulled out of scientific funding., there would barely be any laboratories left.

 

confusing governmental scientific funding

with the government doing scientific research

is a big ass mistake

 

people pretty much don't understand how it works.

 

Yeah,

and you forgot, pharmaceutical companies, who sort of fund research, but really just pay people to write nice things about their products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aod, i'd thought maybe you were getting at that with that school

that they didn't accept govt funding.

which is cool

but i didn't see anyting that their research focus wasn't far beyond 'think tank' style economics. (which wouldn't require tons o funds)

dunno, didn't read through the entire site.

 

well anyway, bill gates is also stepping up.

unfortuunately we need about a hundred other people just as benevolent and rich as him.

 

an 'anonymous donor' recently started the malaria institute, we think it was gates

and hopkins, bloomberg, carnegie, wilmer, kennedy, kreiger and the weinbergs have all been huge helps

haha. and to think, those people got all this shit built

but in no way did they have the cash to keep it runnning.

 

of course we would love to follow MITs lead

and become so creative and inspired, that our patents become our source of income.

 

i have always been an advocate here too

of opening a little coffee bar outside the lab in the hallway and raising our funds that way.

ha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...