[JMJones0424]

Yes, but are there any groups who claim to have ethical problems with funding research using non-embryonic stem cells?

[pamela]

Turtle, on 13 February 2012 - 02:35 PM, said:

let's not forget that not all stem cells are embryonic stem cells.

full descriptions of all types at the source link: international society for stem cell research

yeah i was gonna mention that as well, before i went all mom on the post:P

[Turtle]

JMJones0424, on 13 February 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

Yes, but are there any groups who claim to have ethical problems with funding research using non-embryonic stem cells?

i'm sure there are. personally i have no problem with experimenting/studying any of these stem cell types with the proper permissions from donors. nor do i have a problem with goverments funding such studies/experiments, likewise with the proper permissions of legislatures and per se the people of said governments. as for moral objections rooted in religious beliefs, i see the us constitution as clear.

Quote

...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

source ergo, these moral arguments established by religion(s) deserve no respect in laws on stem cell science.

[JMJones0424]

I agree Turtle, that it would be inappropriate, and likely unconstitutional, to prohibit embryonic stem cell research. However, my problem is with federal funding of research, not with legality. I do not feel comfortable with the federal government funding anything that is viewed as unethical by some of its populace, whether I agree or not, when its funding is not necessary for the execution of the constitutional powers of the federal government. It is my view that it is counter productive and even dangerous for an elected government to ignore the ethical concerns of a minority group on matters that are not essential to the execution of governmental powers.

[Turtle]

JMJones0424, on 13 February 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

I agree Turtle, that it would be inappropriate, and likely unconstitutional, to prohibit embryonic stem cell research. However, my problem is with federal funding of research, not with legality. I do not feel comfortable with the federal government funding anything that is viewed as unethical by some of its populace, whether I agree or not, when its funding is not necessary for the execution of the constitutional powers of the federal government. It is my view that it is counter productive and even dangerous for an elected government to ignore the ethical concerns of a minority group on matters that are not essential to the execution of governmental powers.

plenty of ill-defined terms in all that to spur more discussion, i agree. for example, at what number/threshold does "some of the population" take precedence? seems to me our governance already takes this all into consideration -by structure if not by practice- with elected people performing the appropriate duties in making, enforcing, and adjudicating our laws, while we the voters choose these people. then there is the matter of what "essential" means, and so on.

anyway, i am reminded of the anecdote of ben franklin and his invention of the lightning rod. now in that time the tall buildings were pretty much only churches and "government" buildings [where people congregated at risk] and some of the clergy objected to having a lightning rod on their church. often times the church didn't burn and only the bell-ringer warning of a storm was killed after all. the clergy argued it was imoral to defy god's will. ben replied then they ought not have roofs either as they were defying god's will that they should be wet.

well, that's more or less of it as i can remember. anyway, we have since not only used some lightning rods, we have made it law to include them on high buildings, regardless that some minority may object on moral and/or religious grounds. (do the amish use lightning rods i wonder? ) given that stem cell research has the demostrated potential to benefit, if not protect, the people who congregate in our country, then i think governance has a legitmate perogative, if not responsibility , to fund and/or promote it by legislative means.

[JMJones0424]

I do not agree that the lightning rod example has much to offer in this situation. As far as I know, building codes are state and local issues, and existing structures are generally grandfathered. Benjamin Franklin did not request federal tax dollars to fund his research. I do not agree that ethical concerns must necessarily come from religious groups, as you seem to be implying. Finally, as those who argue against the research do so on ethical grounds, its utility isn't relevant. However, as I don't share the ethical concerns, I am not going to continue trying to defend that opinion.

I spent the evening trying to hash out exactly how I feel about the situation. As far as the subject of this thread is concerned, not only do I not have an ethical problem with stem cell research, including research using cells from embryonic lines, I share the opinion that argument against such research on ethical grounds is weak.

My problem is a political one concerning the role of the federal government. There has been no clear, to me, case made for the necessity of federal funds for this research to continue, nor does there seem to me to be constitutional grounds for the federal government to fund the research. I feel as strongly that there is no constitutional grounds to prohibit such research.

[Turtle]

JMJones0424, on 14 February 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

I do not agree that the lightning rod example has much to offer in this situation. As far as I know, building codes are state and local issues, and existing structures are generally grandfathered. Benjamin Franklin did not request federal tax dollars to fund his research. I do not agree that ethical concerns must necessarily come from religious groups, as you seem to be implying. Finally, as those who argue against the research do so on ethical grounds, its utility isn't relevant. However, as I don't share the ethical concerns, I am not going to continue trying to defend that opinion.

well, i gave it a shot. take the story by a broader brush to illustrate a demonstrable positive benefit of a new technology for all the people which was emplemented/authorized by government/authorities in spite of ethical objections from a few. if that still doesn't get it, i withdraw the example, crumple it up, and burn it in my ashtray. the reader is always right.

JMJones0424 said:

I spent the evening trying to hash out exactly how I feel about the situation. As far as the subject of this thread is concerned, not only do I not have an ethical problem with stem cell research, including research using cells from embryonic lines, I share the opinion that argument against such research on ethical grounds is weak.

My problem is a political one concerning the role of the federal government. There has been no clear, to me, case made for the necessity of federal funds for this research to continue, nor does there seem to me to be constitutional grounds for the federal government to fund the research. I feel as strongly that there is no constitutional grounds to prohibit such research.

damned if we do & damned if we don't. i agree that stem cell research doesn't qualify as "necessary" and i think that while congress is within its bounds to fund & regulate it, our debt could using some trimming of the unnecessary right now. i guess i now have to spend an evening trying to come up with a scenereo of constitutional grounds to prohibit any research. bioweapons?