If the government forces you to pay taxes, and spends that money on research, the government is forcing you to pay for research. And no, no one has the right not to be offended, but they do have property rights, and shouldn't be forced to pay for things outside of the proper realm of government, especially if they find it morally objectionable.
Well, if you follow this then the government can collect as much tax as they want. But they can't spend a dime because always there is going to be a small minority opposed to it being spend. The majority of the population actually want this research to happen. The US government funds a lot of different kinds of research. Never is the opinion of the public asked. Why should it be asked here?
Where does 'actual morality' stem from?
I meant morality where an actual argument is made, instead of referring to dogma which originated 4000 years ago.
A dogma is authoritive and cannot be disputed. Actual morality needs to prove its own value and can be disputed.
I get the feeling that you are using it to refer to whatever particular morals you have.
Of course not. Don't reflect your own personality on me.
And what is 'dogmatic morality'? Taken literally, it would refer to any objective morality.
Objective morality? Since when does that exist? It could only exist if there is a god and there is no indication for the existence of a god at all. So it cannot exist as far as anyone can tell.
Actually, I guess 'dogmatic morality' is a pleonasm.
You're wrong. People can take some fundamental beliefs that they hold and extrapolate those ideas to apply to specific scenarios, but the fundamental beliefs themselves can never be rationally proven. Prove in an objective manner that murder is wrong, or that child molestation is wrong. You can't. No one can.
I wasn't talking about objective proof. I was talking about actual arguments. The OT says: "Thou shalt not kill." That's all. That is not what I call useful morality. But Jesus said: "Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you." That is a tremendous improvement.
Also, you didn't even comment on my point. You claimed no one could make a rational argument for any form of morality. But people have been trying to do this since the beginning of written language. Ethics and morality have been one of the main subjects throughout all philosophy.
Clinton never passed any bill of that nature. Bush did in his first term. And if you remove a restriction to using federal dollars for something, you are in effect funding it, even if it comes out of a general budget.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_AmendmentYes, you are effectively funding it. But you were still misrepresenting the facts. The senate tried to remove restrictions, they did not try to pass a buget for stem cell research.
Why shouldn't the taxpayers be able to decide what their tax dollars are to fund? Are they to stupid to be given this freedom?
They should and they have, that is the point, through the senate. But Bush vetoed it. Now I support direct democracy but the US uses senators. I don't get your point at all. In this rare case the US democracy almost worked as the senate did a good job to represent their voters. But then Bush vetoed and it all went wrong anyway.
Adult stem cells have been used in treatments for paralysis, cancer and multiple sclerosis.
Yes. Actually, for your information, they are also being used by quackeries to make money.
Researchers have a vested interest in arguing that their field deserves funding. Do you really think that any researcher is going to say, 'please, slash my budget. Or better yet, go ahead and fire me. My research isn't going to produce anything.'
This goes for any field of research. I don't know how research funding is spend in the US but the legislation the senate tried to remove has nothing to do with this issue. It is on another level. If you think the way research buget is spend is not working properly then start a new topic about this. My point was that the buget should be spend based on scientific knowledge rather than politician motives. Therefore politicians shouldn't determine how the money is spend but rather the universities or a board of professors. You can concieve of several different ways to do this.