Libertarian Viewpoint on Stem Cell Research
To get back on the taboo track, lets have a little discussion on Stem Cell Research.
First, the facts. According to a 2006 publication, “Stem cells—a clinical update” by Australian Family Physician, Stem cells are cells found in most, if not all, multi-cellular organisms. They are characterized by the ability to renew themselves through mitotic cell division and differentiating into a diverse range of specialized cell types. Research in the stem cell field grew out of findings by Canadian scientists Ernest A. McCulloch and James E. Till in the 1960s. The two broad types of mammalian stem cells are: embryonic stem cells that are isolated from the inner cell mass of blastocysts, and adult stem cells that are found in adult tissues. In a developing embryo, stem cells can differentiate into all of the specialized embryonic tissues. In adult organisms, stem cells and progenitor cells act as a repair system for the body, replenishing specialized cells, but also maintain the normal turnover of regenerative organs, such as blood, skin, or intestinal tissues.
Thus, because embryonic stem cells, or fetal stem cells, WE can make almost any tissue to form almost any human component. The fetal stem cell differs from the adult stem cell in that adult stem cells repair the tissues.
To begin with the critique, there in lies the problem in whether or not government should be able to promote research (through funding or endorsement) in perfecting the use of fetal stem cells. I would maintain in response to just the straight up practice of stem cell research, or using fetal stem cells themselves, the federal government should be unheard.
Federal funding of medical research guarantees the politicization of decisions about what types of research for what diseases will be funded. Thus, 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. Lobbyists typically are to blame for the misdirected government initiatives that often clash with morally decided scenarios in which should be left up to the individual. The idea that the taxpayer must fund controversial decisions, whether it be stem cell research, or performing any action that requires the government to overstep it’s moral threshold, is stupid, stupid, and stupid.
Dr. Ron Paul makes the point that the original concept of the republic was much more suited to sort out the pros and cons of such a difficult issue. It did so with the issue of capital punishment. It did so, until 1973, with the issue of abortion. As with many other issues it has done the same but now unfortunately, most difficult problems are nationalized. Decentralized decision making and privatized funding would have gone a long way in preventing the highly charged emotional debate going on today regarding cloning and stem cell research.
So, tell me forum, does the critique of stem cell research lie in the government’s funding of it, or just the pure practice and use of fetal stem cell research?
In Liberty,
Jonathan Raof
personally anytime you monkey around with genetic material what you are going to get is an unknown. as such i would not be a likely candidate investing in the technology. that said it doesn’t mean others are prohibited if a moral use of material (not a race of monsters to wipe out planet earth’s current organism base) is contemplated, with reasonable safety and controls. private investment (without any government -financial– safety net for potential bailout) is of course the preferable way to proceed- if proceed we must. the next best thing is localized governmental methods — which likely produce horrific complications– whose cells? to what end? what are the protocols? what is required? prohibited? credentials? whose property is the outcome? intellectual property? fees that can be charged for using this? kickbacks to aid governmental unit(s)? etc being among the reasons that any government involvement surely complicates and makes worse something that likely should not be done anyway. worse yet is federal or (the worst) larger than federal (international, interplanetary) involvement. the federal government (if it would stay within the confines of the constitution note amendments 9 and 10) would have no proper role in this (and as such no business involving itself on treaties for this matter either (nor should senators representing the several sovereign states acquiesce via ratification to any such treaty) , nor the court uphold it as valid.
abortion, stem cells, the funding of research, picking winner/loser technology (with a possible minimal exception re defense/police –legitimate ((if such exist)) government work) are all impermissible areas for governmental involvement/intrusion. politicization focuses too much on how do we do x or y. leaving government (particularly large government such as federal or larger) out leaves the possibility of cooler heads questioning not only what return on investment may be realized by doing x or y, but also is it worth the economic downside risk ? as well as is this activity something we want our firm to be associated with? should it be done at all, merely because it may be technically possible?
OK – you need to define a few things so I understand what you are saying here
1. you say critic but you don’t mention WHO the critic is – please explain – or did you mean critique
2. “stupid” is an adjective that usually describes a noun of a person or action – you end the sentence but do not say who or what is stupid
3. you state: I would maintain in response to just the straight up practice of stem cell research, or using fetal stem cells themselves, the federal government should be behind unheard. Just what does “the federal government should be behind unheard.” mean?
Jimk, yah I meant to say be unheard, and not be behind unheard. And yes I meant critique. And no, stupid (the adj) was describing the main idea (the fist noun), which is a person, place, or idea..and my sentence actually says “The idea that the taxpayer must fund controversial decisions, whether it be stem cell research, or performing any action that requires the government to overstep it’s moral threshold, is stupid, stupid, and stupid.” I had an “a” misplaced before and I fixed it.
Thanks Jonathan for the details. Can you confirm, in your spare time – lol- that there has yet to be any significant discoveries using fetal stem cells? And I believe that the embilical (sp?) cord contains the same/similar stem cells as a fetus. This is what I have come to believe and, therefore, fight against the planting of a crop of kids for scientific use, but please correct me if I am wrong. In this case I will follow any links – Thx again…. JimW
Jonathan,
So, in this case, where research is being done, and people are playing god with the genome system, you say the government should be “unheard”. I.e. you mean they should NOT be involved at all in any way shape or form?
Yet, in abortion cases, while you say they should not be involved, you actually think they should write legislation.
Well, certainly no one will accuse you of being consistent with your principles.
That’s very democratic of you. Making them bend to your desires rather then sticking to your principles. In other words, your principles are not true because you don’t use them across ALL the comparable situations, only the ones you like.
Jonathan,
Now, all that being said, I am glad you clarified what you meant. In going back and rereading your article with the new understanding I would agree. The government should have NO involvement in this at all. I would also maintain, on the same basis, that they should have no involvement in the abortion cases either (referencing your other article).
You are also correct when saying that putting government money out there; it will go where it does the most political good. That’s one of the major problems with government funding of ANYTHING. For that reason alone, it should be screamed from the highest mountains and letting everyone know that government should NOT fund a single thing that deals with research.
Unfortunately, that will not happen any time soon. People seem to think that since the government can collect any funds by force, that it should be the one to funnel everything into research. That way, people who want things to be researched will go to the government for money rather then do all the work of fundraising themselves.
The moment people realize they can vote themselves anything they want from the public trough it is all over. We have been downhill ever since the government started playing the redistribution game. It will continue until the people have had enough of the pain, then the revolts begin.
Jimk,
You flatter me with your inability to understand anything. I can’t believe you question the consistency of my principles. I am saying government should not be involved in stem cell research and abortion and everything unconstitutionally managed. Just because the congress passes legislation and resolutions declaring they will not get involved – does not mean they are GETTING INVOLVED. This has been explained several times throughout our discussions – recall the protection and endorsement of negative and positive rights, and our phone discussions about how resolutions are expressions of the sentiment of congress.
Additionally you say: “That’s very democratic of you. ”
Are you implying I am a democrat – a liberal and progressive person, OR am I democratic – characterized by or advocating or based upon the principles of democracy or social equality; “democratic government”; “a democratic country”??? Two different words, two different meanings – are you being inconsistent?
Jonathan,
You should quit flattering yourself. It is a very unbecoming characteristic for one of your esteemed stature.
I understand what I am talking about – as in the phone conversation, when I told you that you were wrong – I still maintain that you are wrong. In this case you say the government should NOT BE HEARD – that means – not say anything at all, no legislation no nothing – but the other case, you were for legislation – I did not get any thing mixed up here. I simply pointed out that you are not being consistent in the way you APPLY your principles.
When I said it is very democratic of you, since I am not referring to voting, it should be obvious I am referring to that tactics used by democrats. In other words, your action in this instance is something I would expect from a typical democrat. I am not im[lying you are democrat by any means, far from it. I know you much better than that; I am saying you are acting like one in this particular instance.
Jimk,
I am NOT being inconsistent in the application of my principles. You yourself is a democrat for being so close-minded in understanding my point. The government is unheard….let me see here, what context am I possibly using this in? Oh, I know, the context that the government is unheard when it does not legislate stuff that actually changes anything. Legislation expressing sentiment is NOT a form of action and thus “unheard”. I guess I should be even more specific next time.
Jonathan,
We go over this all the time.
Words have meanings. When I read your words I understand a certain meaning behind it. For instance, when I red the word “unheard”, in general, it means to be that nothing is coming from the source. In Specific it means that no sound is coming from the source.
Since we are talking about the science of sound I applied the general meaning.
Let us put this into perspective so you can understand what I mean with an example. You can pick any topic you have posted about. If it was unheard from Jonathan then the post never would have happened and no one would have heard Jonathans view on the subject.
Make that akin to your abortion case. If it was unheard from the government then the legislation never would have happened and no one would have heard the governments view on the subject.
OK, that said, in going with your thought process of how government is unheard of even when they write legislation that doesn’t change anything. If that were true, what is the sense in writing it? I mean, they must have had a purpose otherwise they would not have done it.
If that purpose is fulfilled then they were “heard” in some fashion or another now weren’t they? Also, it cost money, even if they only passed legislation that never changes anything , it still costs money, so they are heard from in that sense as well since the taxpayers have to fund their meaningless gibberish that says nothing to nobody.
Do you see what I mean here or will you continue to obstinate? The truth doesn’t need defending. So, why are you trying so hard to defend yourself?
LOL
It amazes me how often we get off on these side tracks. Maybe we should write an article about what it means to be consistent with ones principles or thoughts. Quit using the “I know you think you understand what I said but what you read is not what I meant” syndrome.
Yes – you should be more specific next time.
Jimk,
Again, your nit-picking and being difficult like a woman. lol. Uh Ooo…sexist joke. haha
Jonathan
I would not have to be “difficult like a woman” if you stopped being so Ciceronian.
I am just trying to get your to learn to be consistent in the application of your principles – if you want to call that nit-picking, then so be it…I am guilty as charged.
But my PRINCIPLES are consistent. You just don’t like the way I deliver the goods.
LOL – your delivery ie application – is not consistent – so yes – you are right – I don’t like the way you deliver them.
However, you can learn the right way. After all, people do grow as they learn to correct thier mistakes.
I know you want to be the best dang possible person that you can be and that you want to live your prinicples to the fullest extent. I am proud to be able to help you along the journey toward enlightment.
JimK,
I’m right; Yes I am. lol