NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, we're seeing a wave of abortion threads! Now, y'all know that I am against abortion, I believe that it's murder, and it's just a horrible act. However, I do realize that not everyone believes that I do, and I cannot push my ideology on the masses. With that being said, should abortion and stem cell really be funded by taxpayers? I mean is it fair to ask taxpayers to fund something that they may not agree with? I don't agree with abortion, and while I wouldn't impose my ideology on anyone else, by the same token I don't want my taxpayers going towards something I do not support. I think abortions and stem cell should be funded by the private sector, and not by the taxpayers. What do y'all think?

Abortions should be mandatory.

Abortions should be mandatory.

Ok...and that doesn't help anything....

Please tell me you know that aborted fetal tissue can NOT be used for stem cell research...

I don't want my taxpayers going towards something I do not support.What do y'all think?

I think if you own those taxpayers they should listen to you when you tell them to vote. :)

Ok...and that doesn't help anything....

It would prevent the future from inheriting our stupidity.

Now, y'all know that I am against [controversial policy], I believe that it's [negative adjective], and it's just a horrible act. However, I do realize that not everyone believes that I do, and I cannot push my ideology on the masses. With that being said, should [controversial policy] really be funded by taxpayers? I mean is it fair to ask taxpayers to fund something that they may not agree with? I don't agree with [controversial policy], and while I wouldn't impose my ideology on anyone else, by the same token I don't want my taxpayers going towards something I do not support. I think [controversial policy] should be funded by the private sector, and not by the taxpayers. What do y'all think?

You can pretty much use this argument for anything. War, welfare, medical costs, funding the arts... the list goes on. It's like mad-libs!

Well, do you agree with the Iraq War? Phone Wiretaps? Are you paying for it?

The answer is that as long as there is a government using tax money to do something there are bound to be people who disagree with what their money ends up funding.
The place to settle this is the ballot box.

That being said, since this is NSG, the place for random ideologies - you may well want to look some sort of anarchism. :D

Abortions should be mandatory.

In some situations.

You can pretty much use this argument for anything. War, welfare, medical costs, funding the arts... the list goes on. It's like mad-libs!

LOL, good one.

Please tell me you know that aborted fetal tissue can NOT be used for stem cell research...

I'm not connecting the two. However that is news to me, I thought they could be.

I'm not connecting the two. However that is news to me, I thought they could be.

Nope. Aborted fetal tissue has developed WAY too much. That's why discarded embryos ("leftovers" from fertility clinics, so to speak) and umbilical cord blood are used.

I think we should stop funding the War in Iraq to instead fund all abortions here. It would stop so many stupid babies from growing up, failing high school, and end up being stuck in Iraq...Oops....[/John Kerry moment]

Yes, we're seeing a wave of abortion threads! Now, y'all know that I am against abortion, I believe that it's murder, and it's just a horrible act. However, I do realize that not everyone believes that I do, and I cannot push my ideology on the masses. With that being said, should abortion and stem cell really be funded by taxpayers? I mean is it fair to ask taxpayers to fund something that they may not agree with? I don't agree with abortion, and while I wouldn't impose my ideology on anyone else, by the same token I don't want my taxpayers going towards something I do not support. I think abortions and stem cell should be funded by the private sector, and not by the taxpayers. What do y'all think?

They should be funded by taxpayers, the same way other controversial policies like the invasion of Middle Eastern nations are funded. If we stopped taxpayer funding for programs that anyone found offensive we wouldn't fund anything at all. Then we could keep all our tax money and everyone could take their own trash to the dump and pave their own roads and deliver their own mail.

i dont think that it is right for taxpayers to pay for other's abortions. this is an issue that should be handed to private clinics that deal primarily with this procedure, and the cost incurred by the person seeking the abortion.

They should be funded by taxpayers, the same way other controversial policies like the invasion of Middle Eastern nations are funded. If we stopped taxpayer funding for programs that anyone found offensive we wouldn't fund anything at all. Then we could keep all our tax money and everyone could take their own trash to the dump and pave their own roads and deliver their own mail.

Well I think people would want mail, and would want paved roads. As for the trash, eh there are private trash companies, and my family has a contract with one of them. They are much better than the city funded trash pick up.

I think it's time the IRS should let us pick and choose what we want to pay taxes on! :D

I think it's time the IRS should let us pick and choose what we want to pay taxes on! :D

I want my taxes to go towards making your life a living hell! :p

Well I think people would want mail, and would want paved roads. As for the trash, eh there are private trash companies, and my family has a contract with one of them. They are much better than the city funded trash pick up.

I think it's time the IRS should let us pick and choose what we want to pay taxes on! :D

The Amish probably don't. Bam! no more government funded asphalt.

My point is we can't pick or choose what our tax dollars directly fund. We elect representatives that pass and repeal programs we like/dislike. If we stopped funding anything that anyone found offensive, nothing would be funded. I know that just because of myself the war in Iraq and the entire state of Kansas would stop receiving a dime from the federal government.

As the US healthcare system stands now, abortion should be funded privately (very little is funded publicly in US medicine)

Private insurance companies can choose, organizations can do it free (a la planned parenthood).

Stem cell research should, by all means, be publicly funded. But hey, if the feds don't want to, that's cool. The state of Massachusets is currently funding it, which is quickly leading to the opening of many biotech firms. If and when one of these makes a big breakthrough, guess who's getting the benefit? That's right...those crazy liberals.

Surprisingly, when there is a new technology with as much promise as stem cell research, it is economic suicide to ignore it or reject it. It will be far more harmful to the US economy as a whole to say no to funding it.

I want my taxes to go towards making your life a living hell! :p

So you'll be giving me money? Sweet! New airplane! :D

I dont agree with the war in Iraq, yet my tax dollars fund that operation where there are no doubt people being murdered. So long as the war is being funded, I say we fund abortion and stem cells.

Stem cell research is conducted on embryos (NOT fetuses) that have never been and will never be implanted in a uterus. NO aborted fetuses are nor ever have been used for stem cell research.

I dont agree with the war in Iraq, yet my tax dollars fund that operation where there are no doubt people being murdered. So long as the war is being funded, I say we fund abortion and stem cells.

Yes, our tax dollars are used to fund the murder of people. Real people, too, not theoretical people.

What do y'all think?

I think the government should fund me getting laid. Doesn’t mean it’s going to.

Yes, our tax dollars are used to fund the murder of people. Real people, too, not theoretical people.
Ah, but those people aren't US citizens. I'm pretty sure they only count as 3/5 of a person, since they clearly don't have souls.

As the US healthcare system stands now, abortion should be funded privately (very little is funded publicly in US medicine)

Private insurance companies can choose, organizations can do it free (a la planned parenthood).

Stem cell research should, by all means, be publicly funded. But hey, if the feds don't want to, that's cool. The state of Massachusets is currently funding it, which is quickly leading to the opening of many biotech firms. If and when one of these makes a big breakthrough, guess who's getting the benefit? That's right...those crazy liberals.

Surprisingly, when there is a new technology with as much promise as stem cell research, it is economic suicide to ignore it or reject it. It will be far more harmful to the US economy as a whole to say no to funding it.
Is it hard living in the bright light of truth?

I do find it ironic that abortion is bout the woman's rights to privacy regarding her body, and yet abortions are funded by taxpayers $$. Ahh the irony. I do realize that we can't pick and choose on everything, or anything with the way government is set up right now, but I think what would set us on the right path is to define what is the role of government? What is the government responsibility to it's citizens? Then we can go from there.

Ah, but those people aren't US citizens. I'm pretty sure they only count as 3/5 of a person, since they clearly don't have souls.

clearly

Is it hard living in the bright light of truth?

Ironically, today, I decided I want my headstone to read
"Bruce: He saw the light, and put on sunglasses."

I do find it ironic that abortion is bout the woman's rights to privacy regarding her body, and yet abortions are funded by taxpayers $$. Ahh the irony. I do realize that we can't pick and choose on everything, or anything with the way government is set up right now, but I think what would set us on the right path is to define what is the role of government? What is the government responsibility to it's citizens? Then we can go from there.

how, exactly, are abortions paid for by taxpayer money? The US doesn't have social healthcare...medicare is for people 65+ or those who are terminal (hardly the biggest group to get abortions...), and medicaid gives only the most basic of coverage...

I do find it ironic that abortion is bout the woman's rights to privacy regarding her body, and yet abortions are funded by taxpayers $$. Ahh the irony. I do realize that we can't pick and choose on everything, or anything with the way government is set up right now, but I think what would set us on the right path is to define what is the role of government? What is the government responsibility to it's citizens? Then we can go from there.

How about we start with some proof of this taxpayer funded abortion? As far as I know, since we don't have a national healthcare system, the only people who are getting taxpayer funded abortions are poor people who would be getting taxpayer funded pregnancy services.

I do find it ironic that abortion is bout the woman's rights to privacy regarding her body, and yet abortions are funded by taxpayers $$. Ahh the irony. I do realize that we can't pick and choose on everything, or anything with the way government is set up right now, but I think what would set us on the right path is to define what is the role of government? What is the government responsibility to it's citizens? Then we can go from there.

I think abortions should be paid for by charities and donations, and those who recieve the procedure - it's a surgical operation, so it shouldn't be treated as anything more than an appenix removal, which is paid for by insurance or out-of-pocket cash, with no taxpaying involved (usually).

Though stem-cell is -research-. It's science. It's knowledge, and medicine, and cures, and it's very useful to -everyone-, and once it's researched thoroughly enough and we begin to reap the benefits, everyone will enjoy said benefits, so everyone should pay for said research via tax dollars.

How about we start with some proof of this taxpayer funded abortion? As far as I know, since we don't have a national healthcare system, the only people who are getting taxpayer funded abortions are poor people who would be getting taxpayer funded pregnancy services.

Even then, I'm fairly certain that abortion doesn't fall under the realm of the basic services covered by medicaid (although, madicaid is a joint group and varies by state).

How about we start with some proof of this taxpayer funded abortion? As far as I know, since we don't have a national healthcare system, the only people who are getting taxpayer funded abortions are poor people who would be getting taxpayer funded pregnancy services.

And there's got to be a tax cut in there if the woman doesn't go full term... Republicans like tax cuts, don't they?

Even then, I'm fairly certain that abortion doesn't fall under the realm of the basic services covered by medicaid (although, madicaid is a joint group and varies by state).

All I know is that abortion is almost universally not covered under any medical insurance plan and is almost without variation paid for out of pocket by the patient. I imagine that if insurance companies are not covering abortion then something as stripped down as Medicaid isn't either.

All I know is that abortion is almost universally not covered under any medical insurance plan and is almost without variation paid for out of pocket by the patient. I imagine that if insurance companies are not covering abortion then something as stripped down as Medicaid isn't either.

Pretty much. I have not heard of any that do cover it.
Another fact to consider: abortions are expensive, invasive procedures. Medicaid pays somewhere around .10 on the dollar maximum. Most doctors who DO see medicaid patients see them at a breakeven point, if not at a loss. This is for a standard check up. Compare that to the cost of the surgery and post-op care an abortion requires, and suddenly, the doctor is working at such a loss that he cannot afford to perform more than a small handfull of abortions. No doctor would operate under such a system, which further leads me to believe that medicaid doesn't fund them, and, even if they do, doctors won't accept it as coverage.

Pretty much. I have not heard of any that do cover it.
Another fact to consider: abortions are expensive, invasive procedures. Medicaid pays somewhere around .10 on the dollar maximum. Most doctors who DO see medicaid patients see them at a breakeven point, if not at a loss. This is for a standard check up. Compare that to the cost of the surgery and post-op care an abortion requires, and suddenly, the doctor is working at such a loss that he cannot afford to perform more than a small handfull of abortions. No doctor would operate under such a system, which further leads me to believe that medicaid doesn't fund them, and, even if they do, doctors won't accept it as coverage.

Maybe the argument is some of the facilities used for abortions are funded by tax payer dollars.

Maybe the argument is some of the facilities used for abortions are funded by tax payer dollars.

that is possible, but I don't think they are (mind you, I am not sure about this. I am speaking from my experience within the Connecticut medical situation)

I believe that the majority of hospitals are either research hospitals associated with universities, non-profit ventures, or private for profit ventures (only common in the South). I don't think there are any state-owned, but I may be wrong about that.

Yes, we're seeing a wave of abortion threads! Now, y'all know that I am against abortion, I believe that it's murder, and it's just a horrible act. However, I do realize that not everyone believes that I do, and I cannot push my ideology on the masses. With that being said, should abortion and stem cell really be funded by taxpayers? I mean is it fair to ask taxpayers to fund something that they may not agree with? I don't agree with abortion, and while I wouldn't impose my ideology on anyone else, by the same token I don't want my taxpayers going towards something I do not support. I think abortions and stem cell should be funded by the private sector, and not by the taxpayers. What do y'all think?

I disagree with paying police to enforce drug laws, I want my drug law money back. To spend on drugs. You can see where this might lead. I also disagree with invading foreign countries, so I want my money that's going to pay people to fight in Afghanistan back. To spend on drugs, and lego soldiers. Eventually, as everyone picks and chooses, I forsee a large increase in the amount of drug money people have.

that is possible, but I don't think they are (mind you, I am not sure about this. I am speaking from my experience within the Connecticut medical situation)

I believe that the majority of hospitals are either research hospitals associated with universities, non-profit ventures, or private for profit ventures (only common in the South). I don't think there are any state-owned, but I may be wrong about that.

I know places like Planned Parenthood Clinics receive money from tax dollars... at least I'm pretty sure. But that is also a not for profit.

Abortion clinics should be privately owned and operated. It should only be done in a public hospital if there is no private clinic within a reasonable distance or in an emergency. Why? Because not everyone (taxpayers) supports it and it's not vital to the operation of the nation.

Stem cell research should be an option on the form when people decide what to do with extra embryos. They're either going to be destroyed or donated to other people right now, why not give the option to have those that will be destroyed be used to search for life saving cures. Those cures are years away but a journey of a thousand miles starts with but a single step. We'll never get there if we don't start. The research needs to be private and the donations optional.

It's difficult to say whether tax people's money should be used. In some cases, some people may argue, such as a young girl raped ... should she be able to have an abortion on the nhs?

Also, i don't know how true this actually is, but the NHS is removing tattoos now?! I think that is a more ridiculous thought.

Planned Parenthood does list 31% of its revenue as being from government grants and contracts, so certainly some of their money is derived from taxes. However, to me "grants and contracts" says that this money can be withdrawn at any time. They are not directly funded as a public clinic or hospital would be.

Selling nuclear weapons to rogue states.

Liberally, and with guns.

Yes, we're seeing a wave of abortion threads! Now, y'all know that I am against abortion, I believe that it's murder, and it's just a horrible act. However, I do realize that not everyone believes that I do, and I cannot push my ideology on the masses. With that being said, should abortion and stem cell really be funded by taxpayers? I mean is it fair to ask taxpayers to fund something that they may not agree with? I don't agree with abortion, and while I wouldn't impose my ideology on anyone else, by the same token I don't want my taxpayers going towards something I do not support. I think abortions and stem cell should be funded by the private sector, and not by the taxpayers. What do y'all think?

My tax money is funding the Iraq war. I was against that from the beginning. It's killed loads of people for no good reason. Why should I have to pay for needless killing of actual humans but you think you should get a pass because you disagree with killing undifferentiated clusters of cells?

Yes, we're seeing a wave of abortion threads! Now, y'all know that I am against abortion, I believe that it's murder, and it's just a horrible act. However, I do realize that not everyone believes that I do, and I cannot push my ideology on the masses. With that being said, should abortion and stem cell really be funded by taxpayers? I mean is it fair to ask taxpayers to fund something that they may not agree with? I don't agree with abortion, and while I wouldn't impose my ideology on anyone else, by the same token I don't want my taxpayers going towards something I do not support. I think abortions and stem cell should be funded by the private sector, and not by the taxpayers. What do y'all think?

It's a good question, and I think the answer will be around the if the tax payer wants the benifits of either technology then I guess the tax payer should pay, mark.

Abortion, in most cases, is an elective procedure. I don't think that elective procedures, as a general rule, should be publicly funded. Publicly funding (ie. medicaid) medically necessary abortion, on the other hand, I see no problem with.

Stem cell research, like any basic science research, should be elligible for public funding, so long as public funding for research is available at all. If a grant is found to be viable by peer review and placed up for funding, it should receive said funding.

Yes, we're seeing a wave of abortion threads! Now, y'all know that I am against abortion, I believe that it's murder, and it's just a horrible act. However, I do realize that not everyone believes that I do, and I cannot push my ideology on the masses. With that being said, should abortion and stem cell really be funded by taxpayers? I mean is it fair to ask taxpayers to fund something that they may not agree with? I don't agree with abortion, and while I wouldn't impose my ideology on anyone else, by the same token I don't want my taxpayers going towards something I do not support. I think abortions and stem cell should be funded by the private sector, and not by the taxpayers. What do y'all think?

Act: Funded By

Stem cell research: private corporations
Abortion: whoever requests it

The idea here is to make it legal, but not to sponsor it. Allow, but don't explicitly support.

The same for religion.

And homosexual marriages.

All part of the functionality of a true government that acts in the interests of its people by not getting involved beyond instilling and maintaining social order.

Act: Funded By

Stem cell research: private corporations
Abortion: whoever requests it

The idea here is to make it legal, but not to sponsor it. Allow, but don't explicitly support.

The same for religion.

And homosexual marriages.

All part of the functionality of a true government that acts in the interests of its people by not getting involved beyond instilling and maintaining social order.
By not getting involved in stem cell research, that sector of our economy is condemned to death.
Nations like England, France, Germany, China, Korea, India, Israel, Canada, Russia...They will be funding stem cell research. The big biotech firms will be established in those countries. The rewards of the research will go to them.

As I pointed out, this is not an insane claim. The state of MA has been funding stem cell research, as well as having more private research universities than just about anywhere per capita. Not surprisingly, the major research centers in stem cell research are in and around Boston, not around Atlanta, or even LA and NYC or Chicago. All of those cities are equally equipt to handle the research, but they don't provide the funding Boston does. And Boston will get the rewards.

Apply that to the larger scale...instead of cities, countries.In order to maintain a leading economy, a nation must maintain a technological edge or resign itself to failure. It is that simple. This isn't a new concept, it is the very reason the US is trying to boost and promote math and science education to produce more research scientists and engineers. However, these newly trained scientists and engineers will go where there are jobs. If all the biomed scientists can't find jobs in the US, but can find them in Canada or China, guess where they'll be moving?

We all have to pay taxes for something we don't personally believe in. The solution? Vote for people who will do with your taxes what you want them to. Personally I believe wholeheartedly in abortion and that refusing someones right to an abortion is as monstrous as refusing to allow your child to get a blood transfusion based on religious grounds.

Paying for it with taxes... yeah I think so. Afterall, I don't believe that people who smoke or drink should be allowed treatment for issues caused by those vices on state expense. Another example is that the court will provide a lawyer for those too poor to afford one. Well I'm sorry but the majority of crime is commited by the poor, ergo the majority of cases will be paid for by the state. Lo and behold, society paying for the defense of a person who commited a crime against the state. Lovely.

In summary, accept that you should be paying for it if you want to have medical treatment paid for everyone else doesn't agree with.

Yes, we're seeing a wave of abortion threads! Now, y'all know that I am against abortion, I believe that it's murder, and it's just a horrible act. However, I do realize that not everyone believes that I do, and I cannot push my ideology on the masses. With that being said, should abortion and stem cell really be funded by taxpayers? I mean is it fair to ask taxpayers to fund something that they may not agree with? I don't agree with abortion, and while I wouldn't impose my ideology on anyone else, by the same token I don't want my taxpayers going towards something I do not support. I think abortions and stem cell should be funded by the private sector, and not by the taxpayers. What do y'all think?

would you rather pay for the mothers maternity leave? or for free kindergarden for her kid?

i dont think that it is right for taxpayers to pay for other's abortions. this is an issue that should be handed to private clinics that deal primarily with this procedure, and the cost incurred by the person seeking the abortion.

Becausse poor people will make excellent parents. And poor women can afford to take time off of work when they are 7-9 months

yes and yes.

I mean is it fair to ask taxpayers to fund something that they may not agree with?

I don't "agree" with much of what my government does.

Does this mean I shouldn't have to pay a portion of tax that is used to pay for their actions?

Nope.

We all have to pay taxes for something we don't personally believe in. The solution? Vote for people who will do with your taxes what you want them to. Personally I believe wholeheartedly in abortion and that refusing someones right to an abortion is as monstrous as refusing to allow your child to get a blood transfusion based on religious grounds.

Paying for it with taxes... yeah I think so. Afterall, I don't believe that people who smoke or drink should be allowed treatment for issues caused by those vices on state expense. Another example is that the court will provide a lawyer for those too poor to afford one. Well I'm sorry but the majority of crime is commited by the poor, ergo the majority of cases will be paid for by the state. Lo and behold, society paying for the defense of a person who commited a crime against the state. Lovely.

In summary, accept that you should be paying for it if you want to have medical treatment paid for everyone else doesn't agree with.

Not attacking you here, but I'd like to figure out your opinion on this --

What about those cases where a crime is committed AGAINST a poor person? Do you feel the state should provide a lawyer in those cases? Also, just because a good portion of crimes are committed by the poor does not mean EVERY poor defendant is guilty.(You knew that already,though.)

Even if he or she is guilty, the right to a fair and speedy trial is still there. A state-appointed lawyer facilitates that, thus protecting the right. (Which is why we're stuck paying for it...)


You do have a very good point -- our tax dollars are also wasted on goverment projects that take FAR longer than they should, and often go overbudget, wasting even more money. No matter what, we're kinda getting screwed, even if it's for something we agree with on some level.

Public money. Abortion is a necessity if society wants even to have a pretence of oppurtunity for all, whilst Stem Cell Research is the future of medicine, and thus ought to be directed and effected by government, in the interests of their populaces, not the interests of corporations.

Tax money

By not getting involved in stem cell research, that sector of our economy is condemned to death.
Nations like England, France, Germany, China, Korea, India, Israel, Canada, Russia...They will be funding stem cell research. The big biotech firms will be established in those countries. The rewards of the research will go to them.

As I pointed out, this is not an insane claim. The state of MA has been funding stem cell research, as well as having more private research universities than just about anywhere per capita. Not surprisingly, the major research centers in stem cell research are in and around Boston, not around Atlanta, or even LA and NYC or Chicago. All of those cities are equally equipt to handle the research, but they don't provide the funding Boston does. And Boston will get the rewards.

Apply that to the larger scale...instead of cities, countries.In order to maintain a leading economy, a nation must maintain a technological edge or resign itself to failure. It is that simple. This isn't a new concept, it is the very reason the US is trying to boost and promote math and science education to produce more research scientists and engineers. However, these newly trained scientists and engineers will go where there are jobs. If all the biomed scientists can't find jobs in the US, but can find them in Canada or China, guess where they'll be moving?

Stem cell research is a dead-end pursuit; but that is beside the point. If states want to fund it, fine. Does that not equate, on a larger scale, to a technological success for the US as a whole? The Fed should be exclusively focused on national defense, maintaining the national treasury and engaging in diplomatic relations. Let the states handle everything else.

No, abortion shouldn't be tax-funded.

Elective medical procedures in general shouldn't be publicly funded, so the only type of abortion that should be funded is medically-necessary abortion.

Stem cell research should have public funds available to it like any other scientific field; in fact, it should be our government's priority to focus on stem cells, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and computer engineering as the primary foci of our government-funded research efforts.

We need to use these technologies to tap their massive potential to alleviate human suffering, and so our government should expand funding to all of them provided they meet whatever ethical standards the disciplines place upon research.

Stem cell research is a dead-end pursuit; but that is beside the point. If states want to fund it, fine. Does that not equate, on a larger scale, to a technological success for the US as a whole? The Fed should be exclusively focused on national defense, maintaining the national treasury and engaging in diplomatic relations. Let the states handle everything else.

Why do you call it a dead-end pursuit?(Seems to me the same thing was said about electricity, the telephone, and even the internet...)

Stem cell research is a dead-end pursuit; but that is beside the point.
How so? Do you have a single shred of proof to back the claim that it will lead nowhere? There have already been breakthroughs and enormous leads in the fields of both cancer and alzheimers.
If states want to fund it, fine. Does that not equate, on a larger scale, to a technological success for the US as a whole?
More money means more funding for research, which means more opportunities for breakthroughs occuring within the US. States can't do it alone.
The Fed should be exclusively focused on national defense, maintaining the national treasury and engaging in diplomatic relations. Let the states handle everything else.That hasn't been the role of the feds since the Civil War. States rights are a joke for the most part. As it stand as such, we either have to completely reform the system, or work within the system we have. Reform would take far longer, and, most probably, require some level of revolution, even if not in the war sense of the word.

Stem cell research is a dead-end pursuit; but that is beside the point. If states want to fund it, fine. Does that not equate, on a larger scale, to a technological success for the US as a whole? The Fed should be exclusively focused on national defense, maintaining the national treasury and engaging in diplomatic relations. Let the states handle everything else.

I would say spending more money than the rest of the world on new ways to kill people is much more of a dead-end pursuit than stem cell research. AFAIK, there's a lot of possibility and progress to be made in the field, especially when combined with simultaneous growth in nanotech and genomics. Real discoveries have been made, and we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of this industry's future. Biotechnology, advanced computing, and the manipulation of things on the nanoscale are the future of medicine, our personal lives and our economy, and the more we work to support them the better off we will be.

If we don't do it, someone else will...and the loss of our technological edge will do more damage to our security than all the defense spending in the world could repair.

The USSR failed because its economy became technologically stagnant and couldn't support its defense industry, not because of anything else. Technology is the backbone of the economy, and the economy is the lifeblood of a superpower.

Yes, we're seeing a wave of abortion threads! Now, y'all know that I am against abortion, I believe that it's murder, and it's just a horrible act. However, I do realize that not everyone believes that I do, and I cannot push my ideology on the masses. With that being said, should abortion and stem cell really be funded by taxpayers? I mean is it fair to ask taxpayers to fund something that they may not agree with? I don't agree with abortion, and while I wouldn't impose my ideology on anyone else, by the same token I don't want my taxpayers going towards something I do not support. I think abortions and stem cell should be funded by the private sector, and not by the taxpayers. What do y'all think?

Abortions are usually privately funded. I can't think of any health insurance that covers them.
Stem cell research is funded by the pharma industry and independent institues.

So, where did you say was your problem again?

Why do you call it a dead-end pursuit?(Seems to me the same thing was said about electricity, the telephone, and even the internet...)

My personal opinion. Quite honestly, I doubt we will be able to garner anything meaningful from stem cell research, or scientific research in general, in the future. Take a step back for a moment. Step outside. Breathe in, look at the nature that surrounds you. Peace. Now that you're detached from the fast-paced world of humanity, consider it for a moment. Everything is so fast, yet so small. Politics has been reduced to squabbling over ad hominems that have nothing to do with a person's ability to lead. Technology is becoming so small it's impractical. Scientific advancements continually become more and more minimal as time progresses--oh look, I can prolong my life by a year by eating two servings of broccoli a day. Yes, I'm immunized from a disease that is so abstract and obscure that it will never reach me, even if I wasn't immunized. Science, if it has not already, is fast approaching its pinnacle, the point at which nothing more can be done. I'm not talking specifically about stem cell research, but science in general. It will stop. Soon.

I would say spending more money than the rest of the world on new ways to kill people is much more of a dead-end pursuit than stem cell research. AFAIK, there's a lot of possibility and progress to be made in the field, especially when combined with simultaneous growth in nanotech and genomics. Real discoveries have been made, and we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of this industry's future. Biotechnology, advanced computing, and the manipulation of things on the nanoscale are the future of medicine, our personal lives and our economy, and the more we work to support them the better off we will be.

If we don't do it, someone else will...and the loss of our technological edge will do more damage to our security than all the defense spending in the world could repair.

The USSR failed because its economy became technologically stagnant and couldn't support its defense industry, not because of anything else. Technology is the backbone of the economy, and the economy is the lifeblood of a superpower.

More practical technological applications have been developed through military development and funding than in any other field. And you want to say it's a dead end pursuit, that's fine. I won't argue with that. But I would rather have stem cell research and other such frivolous, indeed fruitless, pursuits in the hands of private corporations and states. Leave the real work to the national government. Breakthroughs in stem cell research are not coming; they won't. We're too confident that it will. There is nothing more. We're all dead eventually--why prolong it? What are you running from?

How so? Do you have a single shred of proof to back the claim that it will lead nowhere? There have already been breakthroughs and enormous leads in the fields of both cancer and alzheimers.

More money means more funding for research, which means more opportunities for breakthroughs occuring within the US. States can't do it alone.
That hasn't been the role of the feds since the Civil War. States rights are a joke for the most part. As it stand as such, we either have to completely reform the system, or work within the system we have. Reform would take far longer, and, most probably, require some level of revolution, even if not in the war sense of the word.

Breakthroughs? Enormous leads? Minute advance blown entirely out of proportion. Has cancer been cured? Has alzheimers been cured? Who's to judge we're getting "closer" to solving these riddles? For every step we make in the right direction, new, greater problems arise. The best cure for everything is fresh air, water, food, and enjoyment of life. Not this constant worry that I've got terminal cancer or my grandfather's got alzheimer's. People die--enjoy their life, don't prolong their death. Make the most of what you've got, and you'll be happier than if you wasted all your time trying to gain a few more months of suffering. It's selfish and irresponsible--society places too much emphasis on existentiality. There comes a time to move on, accept, and live with what you've got.

My personal opinion. Quite honestly, I doubt we will be able to garner anything meaningful from stem cell research, or scientific research in general, in the future. Take a step back for a moment. Step outside. Breathe in, look at the nature that surrounds you. Peace. Now that you're detached from the fast-paced world of humanity, consider it for a moment. Everything is so fast, yet so small. Politics has been reduced to squabbling over ad hominems that have nothing to do with a person's ability to lead. Technology is becoming so small it's impractical. Scientific advancements continually become more and more minimal as time progresses--oh look, I can prolong my life by a year by eating two servings of broccoli a day. Yes, I'm immunized from a disease that is so abstract and obscure that it will never reach me, even if I wasn't immunized. Science, if it has not already, is fast approaching its pinnacle, the point at which nothing more can be done. I'm not talking specifically about stem cell research, but science in general. It will stop. Soon.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." --Charles H.
Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.

People like you have always existed, saying that we've advanced as far as we can advance. You're called relics.

Stem cell research is a dead-end pursuit;

Is it now? Good to know that the research that I and my colleagues perform is a "dead-end pursuit." How, by the way, do you know this?

If states want to fund it, fine. Does that not equate, on a larger scale, to a technological success for the US as a whole? The Fed should be exclusively focused on national defense, maintaining the national treasury and engaging in diplomatic relations. Let the states handle everything else.

That's a stance you can certainly take, but that would cut out a great deal of research, not just stem cell research.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." --Charles H.
Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.

People like you have always existed, saying that we've advanced as far as we can advance. You're called relics.

Know this: Science is Dead. We are merely rehashing old science and proclaiming it as new. We take common observations and label them discoveries. And yes, there have been people that have said that we are as far as we're going to get. To me, it sounds like an old story. Ever heard of the Boy Who Cried Wolf? Think it's a moral tale about not to keep yelling false alarms? Wrong. It's a tale about the one time society refused to listen, because they were tested again and again and finally gave up. Truly I say to you, we are destroying ourselves with science. We have established false precepts of safety under the guise of knowledge--no more than ignorance that precludes our own destruction.

Know this: Science is Dead. We are merely rehashing old science and proclaiming it as new. We take common observations and label them discoveries. And yes, there have been people that have said that we are as far as we're going to get. To me, it sounds like an old story. Ever heard of the Boy Who Cried Wolf? Think it's a moral tale about not to keep yelling false alarms? Wrong. It's a tale about the one time society refused to listen, because they were tested again and again and finally gave up. Truly I say to you, we are destroying ourselves with science. We have established false precepts of safety under the guise of knowledge--no more than ignorance that precludes our own destruction.

Really? I'm afraid I don't recall that the human genome was sequenced in the 1980's, or that we were able to approach the computational capacity of the human brain in the 1970's, or that we could use gold-plated nanotubes to destroy cancer cells through the use of infrared radiation in the 1950's. Maybe all those planets discovered or new forms of industrial robots and artificial intelligence are all just stolen from texts written in the 1940's, or maybe the quantum computer and 3-dimensional processing are just myths.

Maybe I'm just looking at the wrong science, hmm?

I see the ability to manipulate the physical and biological worlds on the nanoscale, new medicines being developed to treat diseases once seen as a lost cause, the very genetic code deciphered and used to diagnose illness, the frontiers of the human brain pushed back and computer technology advancing exponentially. We have made massive strides in technology that are unprecedented in the history of our species. Even cancer and Alzheimer's disease are slowly succumbing to technology, and for the first time in the history of mankind the possibility of vastly extended lifespans or even effective immortality are within the grasp of mankind.

We are progressing at the fastest rate we ever have, and we are doing so faster and faster. The problem is, most people aren't paying attention.

It would prevent the future from inheriting our stupidity.

It would prevent the future, period.

Know this: Science is Dead. We are merely rehashing old science and proclaiming it as new. We take common observations and label them discoveries.

In other words, you don't know anything about modern science. Gotcha.

Know this: Science is Dead. We are merely rehashing old science and proclaiming it as new. We take common observations and label them discoveries. And yes, there have been people that have said that we are as far as we're going to get. To me, it sounds like an old story. Ever heard of the Boy Who Cried Wolf? Think it's a moral tale about not to keep yelling false alarms? Wrong. It's a tale about the one time society refused to listen, because they were tested again and again and finally gave up. Truly I say to you, we are destroying ourselves with science. We have established false precepts of safety under the guise of knowledge--no more than ignorance that precludes our own destruction.

Troll or genuine know-nothing waste?

Does it matter? On with the dunce cap.

You can pretty much use this argument for anything. War, welfare, medical costs, funding the arts... the list goes on. It's like mad-libs!

Oooh, I want to play!

Now, y'all know that I am against MTAE's psychological help, I believe that it's detrimental to the general level of humor around here, and it's just a horrible act. However, I do realize that not everyone believes that I do, and I cannot push my ideology on the masses. With that being said, should MTAE's psychological help really be funded by taxpayers? I mean is it fair to ask taxpayers to fund something that they may not agree with? I don't agree with MTAE's psychological help, and while I wouldn't impose my ideology on anyone else, by the same token I don't want my taxpayers going towards something I do not support. I think [MTAE's psychological help should be funded by the private sector, and not by the taxpayers. What do y'all think?

Note: That was a joke, and only a joke. All in good fun.

Breakthroughs? Enormous leads? Minute advance blown entirely out of proportion. In other words, you've never read the research that is being done. Gotcha.
Has cancer been cured? several are now up to 90% or better survival rates if treated.
Has alzheimers been cured?It can't be cured untill we know what causes it. As it stands, we are able to slow or stop the degredation, but sadly, not able to reverse it. That is where research comes in.
Who's to judge we're getting "closer" to solving these riddles?One wuld assume the people who are doing the research and find that gene that contributes to alzheimers or that chemical that turns out to be a carcinogen.
For every step we make in the right direction, new, greater problems arise. The best cure for everything is fresh air, water, food, and enjoyment of life.So you've never taken an antibiotic? Tylenol? a pain killer? Never had surgery? Right.
Not this constant worry that I've got terminal cancerI'd say knowing you are going to die within a year is something to think about. or my grandfather's got alzheimer's. You've never had a family member with alzheimers, I take it.
People die--enjoy their life, don't prolong their death.Life, in the way you portray it, is just a stalling of death anyway. Why not just abort all babies and save them the pain of dying?
Make the most of what you've got, and you'll be happier than if you wasted all your time trying to gain a few more months of suffering.Yeah...because curing cancer really makes a few months intolerable. I'll go tell my 22 year old friend that he should have just resigned himself to death. I'm sure he'll appreciate that.
It's selfish and irresponsible--society places too much emphasis on existentiality.What a shocker...people want to live. I'll alert the presses.
There comes a time to move on, accept, and live with what you've got.
No one is trying to be immortal. Simply improve both the quality and quantity of life _simultaneously_. Someone with alzheimers doesn't die immediatly. It is a very slow decent. So if we can cure it, then we are doing exactly what you say. Enjoying life to the fullest.

No way should tax payers pay for that. It should be funded by companies who think that they might make money from it, or by charitable donations like how Cancer Research groups make money. That way if you don't agree with that kind of thing you don't feel like you're being robbed money for something you don't believe in.

As for abortions; pay for it yourself (or get the other responsible party to chip in). Most abortions wouldn't be due to rape, so they only have themselves to blame.

No way should tax payers pay for that. It should be funded by companies who think that they might make money from it, or by charitable donations like how Cancer Research groups make money. That way if you don't agree with that kind of thing you don't feel like you're being robbed money for something you don't believe in.

As for abortions; pay for it yourself (or get the other responsible party to chip in). Most abortions wouldn't be due to rape, so they only have themselves to blame.

I don't believe in the war on terror. I'll expect my refund check in the mail in a few days.

they found a way to get stem cells without destroying embryos, so i vote for that method.

Privately funded.

oh i probably should have added. abortion shouldnt be funded in the slightest or done at all.

No way should tax payers pay for that. It should be funded by companies who think that they might make money from it, or by charitable donations like how Cancer Research groups make money. That way if you don't agree with that kind of thing you don't feel like you're being robbed money for something you don't believe in.

As for abortions; pay for it yourself (or get the other responsible party to chip in). Most abortions wouldn't be due to rape, so they only have themselves to blame.

Why shouldnt tax payers pay for stem cell research? It will benefit everyone, so everyone should pay for it. As for abortions, I agree that people usually have only themselves to blame, but a major reason for wanting an abortion is not having enough money to raise a child, so the weakest and poorest members of society would be screwed.

...

So, you're taking a side on this issue without saying what your reasons are, (and I'm fairly sure there's different reasons for the same side) even if to say "I agree with [insert person here]'s reasons" if your reasons are someone else's? Couldn't you at least say WHY you prefer that approach?


I don't feel it's the tax payers responsibility .. along with a lot of other things we are taxed for. I had no reason to go into detail. Private covered it, and I wasn't looking for a debate, just voiced my opinion on the question asked in the thread title.

Yes, we're seeing a wave of abortion threads! Now, y'all know that I am against abortion, I believe that it's murder, and it's just a horrible act. However, I do realize that not everyone believes that I do, and I cannot push my ideology on the masses. With that being said, should abortion and stem cell really be funded by taxpayers?
No. Given that taxation is theft in the first place....