Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (184469)	10/29/2006 9:38:48 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793750

Exactly, DMA.

To: DMaA who wrote (184469)	10/29/2006 9:46:09 AM
From: Rambi	Respond to of 793750

Sure, I agree. It's the same issue as abortion. There will be no easy answer, but a compromise that leaves everyone both happy and unhappy. The best kind.

To: DMaA who wrote (184469)	10/29/2006 11:56:25 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793750

can we defer to people who DO have serious ethical problems with it and not use their coerced tax dollars to support it I think that's a good question to ask in all of these issues. We can always do that. Legality and federal funding are different and drawing the line at funding can be a useful compromise position. The problem is that different people have myriad serious ethical problems about different things. If the government didn't do anything that some people found problematic it couldn't do much of anything. Now you and I would probably find the government doing next to nothing fortuitous, but we both know that won't happen. So we have to determine which programs the government won't fund with your tax dollars and mine and which it will based on some criteria. How many people and how serious the objection is, I guess. And how much power that particular interest group has. If you want to make a comparison on the basis of ethics, I think that the folks who object to their tax money being used for war have at least as strong a case as those who have problems with embryonic stem cell research, for example. Yet the war machine is funded. What makes embryonic stem cell research so special? Nothing, in principle. It's all politics. So if you have the clout right now to keep embryonic stem cell research away from the federal purse, good for you. But others will lobby and vote the other way. Those who persuade them to do so aren't bad guys. They just have different ethics and want the government's support for theirs. Seems to me that persuasion and voting are avenues open to both sides.