[Ax]

Now, since this is in G&E, I have to say that, while I don't necessarily disagree with ESCR, I do disagree with government funding of it. I believe in a very strict interpretation and implementation of the Constitution, and there are no provisions for research in the Government, that is solely the responsibility of the private sector.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by AXguitar

I believe in a very strict interpretation and implementation of the Constitution, and there are no provisions for research in the Government, that is solely the responsibility of the private sector.

is it currently justified as interstate commerce?

[Ax]

Originally Posted by thesteve

is it currently justified as interstate commerce?

Commerce? I wouldn't think so, and the government is supposed to delegate commerce (if memory serves correctly, I'm not about to go sift through the actual constitution at this time in the morning) and delegating is not funding.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by AXguitar

Commerce? I wouldn't think so, and the government is supposed to delegate commerce (if memory serves correctly, I'm not about to go sift through the actual constitution at this time in the morning) and delegating is not funding.

I don't know about funding, but the primary thing is regulation. It's actually the basis for the Civil Rights Acts in the 1960s.

[JerryLove]

I believe in a very strict interpretation and implementation of the Constitution, and there are no provisions for research in the Government, that is solely the responsibility of the private sector.

So then you oppose the Trinity project, which developed nuclear weapons for the US. You oppose the entire space program. You oppose the stealth program.

Such a country was defeated millitarily long ago... not to mention the economic collapse from a lack of understanding of the economy.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by AXguitar

Now, since this is in G&E, I have to say that, while I don't necessarily disagree with ESCR, I do disagree with government funding of it. I believe in a very strict interpretation and implementation of the Constitution, and there are no provisions for research in the Government, that is solely the responsibility of the private sector.

I think saying the government should be restricted only to actions which are specifically allowed by the Constitution is as silly as saying Christians are restricted to actions which are specifically permitted by the Bible. So, no playing sports, no watching TV, no using computers, etc., etc., etc.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Danny

I think saying the government should be restricted only to actions which are specifically allowed by the Constitution is as silly as saying Christians are restricted to actions which are specifically permitted by the Bible. So, no playing sports, no watching TV, no using computers, etc., etc., etc.

Whether it's silly or not, I'm not entirely sure. However, I don't really see this comparison as analogous. The bible isn't a rulebook. But the idea in this country is that we're ruled by law, not by men. And the constitution is the supreme law.

An issue I do see with subsidizing embryonic stem cell research is that it requires the government to arbitrarily define human life (indeed, even in the Roe v. Wade decision Justice Blackmun claims his decision on the first trimester is arbitrary). This seems shaky ground as the bill of rights clearly sets the rights of the individual above the rights of the state. Subsidizing such research means that human life is now being used for the state's purposes.

I believe the question of personhood is philosophical rather than legislative and that the federal government ought to be conservative in this regard (and surely there were many during the time of slavery who felt blacks weren't people in the same way whites were). So as not to possibly erode individual freedoms or set a precedent for it.

These are my thoughts for the moment.

[+SEAL+]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So then you oppose the Trinity project, which developed nuclear weapons for the US. You oppose the entire space program. You oppose the stealth program.

As implemented by the government, I'd agree with that. Private contracts are the way to go there. Remember SpaceshipOne?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by +SEAL+

As implemented by the government, I'd agree with that. Private contracts are the way to go there. Remember SpaceshipOne?

So then the Russians and perhaps Germans would have had atomic weapons before we did? That would be better?

Space-ship one. That's the thing that managed to bearly break the aptmosphere more than a half-century after the Russians put something in orbit isn't it?

I wonder how much money was spent by the combines private firms trying that.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Whether it's silly or not, I'm not entirely sure. However, I don't really see this comparison as analogous. The bible isn't a rulebook. But the idea in this country is that we're ruled by law, not by men. And the constitution is the supreme law.

It certainly is, in part. That's not all it is to a Christian, but if you ask any orthodox Christian how they define what is moral and what is not, most of them will say the Bible. The Bible even refers to itself (or at least to the Old Testament) as "The Law" on more than one occasion. It is the supreme law for the Christian as the Constitution is the supreme law for the U.S. The question is how literally and restrictively should we interpret the Constitution?

An issue I do see with subsidizing embryonic stem cell research is that it requires the government to arbitrarily define human life (indeed, even in the Roe v. Wade decision Justice Blackmun claims his decision on the first trimester is arbitrary). This seems shaky ground as the bill of rights clearly sets the rights of the individual above the rights of the state. Subsidizing such research means that human life is now being used for the state's purposes.

Unfortunately, I think it's a definition that does need to be made legally, and for more reasons than just ESCR (there's also abortion, and the issue of whether one can be charged with murder for killing a fetus without the mother's consent, etc.). However, defining it as starting at the moment of conception is just as arbitrary. I don't think it's a decision that needs to be made arbitrarily; it can be at least in part informed by science, and I gave some scientific reasons in my first post for why I don't think a blastocyst can be reasonably considered a "person." (A person cannot later become two or more people. A person cannot turn into a cancerous tumor.)

I believe the question of personhood is philosophical rather than legislative and that the federal government ought to be conservative in this regard (and surely there were many during the time of slavery who felt blacks weren't people in the same way whites were). So as not to possibly erode individual freedoms or set a precedent for it.

Incidentally, that's a decision which can also be informed by science. All you have to do is look at the DNA and it becomes readily apparent that there is so little biological difference between the races as to be completely negligible.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by +SEAL+

As implemented by the government, I'd agree with that. Private contracts are the way to go there. Remember SpaceshipOne?

I'm having a really hard time wrapping my head around the concept that you think the private sector should be solely responsible for military technology. You realize our military would basically be completely impotent if this were the case, right? But most importantly, the military is a branch of the government, so shouldn't the government be primarily responsible for it?

[Ax]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So then you oppose the Trinity project, which developed nuclear weapons for the US. You oppose the entire space program. You oppose the stealth program.

Such a country was defeated millitarily long ago... not to mention the economic collapse from a lack of understanding of the economy.

Such things fall under: Article 1: Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Danny

It is the supreme law for the Christian as the Constitution is the supreme law for the U.S.

I'd say the bible reveals truth in a broken world but it's not to be understood or read in the same way one would a penal code, for instance. Anyway, that's a bit off-topic.

The question is how literally and restrictively should we interpret the Constitution?

I think the constitution is generally straightforward. Any legislation ought to pass it's litmus test. Or...the constitution should be amended. Roe v Wade is a perfect example of case law trampling on the constitution. According to the 10th amendment individual states ought to be able to ban abortion.

However, defining it as starting at the moment of conception is just as arbitrary.

Perhaps depending upon your point of view. But I'm not advocating that the government should define it in such a way. As to the other points you raised they are something to ponder. However they are also a bit off-topic so I won't go into it here.

I don't think it's a decision that needs to be made arbitrarily; it can be at least in part informed by science, and I gave some scientific reasons in my first post for why I don't think a blastocyst can be reasonably considered a "person." (A person cannot later become two or more people. A person cannot turn into a cancerous tumor.)

The main problem with such an argument is that it already presupposes what a person is. If a blastocyst is not a person then it is true that a person cannot divide, as you say.

Incidentally, that's a decision which can also be informed by science. All you have to do is look at the DNA and it becomes readily apparent that there is so little biological difference between the races as to be completely negligible.

Indeed. And how similar is the DNA of a human blastocyst to a fully grown individual?

[Danny]

Originally Posted by AXguitar

Such things fall under: Article 1: Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So nuclear weapons fall under the common defense...would it not be reasonable to say that health care and medical research fall under "general welfare"?

[Ax]

Originally Posted by Danny

So nuclear weapons fall under the common defense...would it not be reasonable to say that health care and medical research fall under "general welfare"?

In all honesty, no. General Welfare is a term, that now-days, is thrown around sot that Congress can pass any law they want. According to Jefferson and Madison it didn't grant the government any further powers, but it only summarized and generalized the powers granted in Article 1, section 8.