Nancy Reagan urges Bush to reconsider

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Nancy Reagan urges Bush to reconsider
32
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 7:20am

She wants him to reverse his stand against stem cell research and is pictured with Michael J. Fox.  Is this what it is going to take to convince Bush that his ideological stance against this research is wrong?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3700015.stm








Nancy Reagan plea on stem cells








Ronald Reagan is suffering the advanced stages of Alzheimer's disease
Former US First Lady Nancy Reagan has urged the Bush administration to support embryonic stem cell research.

Mrs Reagan said too much time had been wasted already discussing the issue.

She is said to believe the research could lead to a cure for Alzheimer's disease, which has afflicted her husband, Ronald Reagan.

The Bush administration has blocked public funding of this type of research because of his party's ethical reservations about embryo research.

At a fundraising dinner for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation in Hollywood, Mrs Reagan said her husband was now in "a distant place where I can no longer reach him".

"I just don't see how we can turn our backs on this... We have lost so much time already. I just really can't bear to lose any more."

She said she believed stem cell research "may provide our scientists with many answers that for so long have been beyond our grasp".

It is thought to be the first time that Mrs Reagan has made a public speech on the issue, although her views have long been known.

Political debate

Mrs Reagan is the latest high-profile figure to criticise the Bush administration for its decision to limit funding for stem cell research.






Michael J. Fox and Nancy Reagan
Actor Michael J. Fox praised Mrs Reagan for "taking the issue out of politics"
Former Superman actor Christopher Reeve, left severely disabled following a riding accident, and actor Michael J. Fox, who is suffering from Parkinson's disease, have both criticised the Bush administration for blocking research which they believe could improve their conditions.

Currently federal funds are not available for this type of work.

Mr Bush has told scientists he will not release US taxpayers' money for the production or investigation of new lines because it involves the destruction of human embryos.

Correspondents say that with the Bush administration and anti-abortion groups strongly opposed to stem cell research, Mrs Reagan's comments add a powerful conservative Republican voice to the debate.


 


Elaine

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Mon, 08-02-2004 - 12:18pm
"I disagree with your POV that a few cells that have multiplied for a few days are, as you put it, children &/or humans. Do you believe fertility clinics are also "barbaric"? "

Well here is where I'm gonna sound totally out there to those on the left.

Test tube babies, fertility clinics, cloning, abortion, embryo research are all areas of science where we are messing with human lives at one stage of development or the other. To have 6 frozen embryos in reserve is just sick to me. I know the chances of conceiving are low and multiple attempts are necessary. I just can't stomach the idea that we have these humans frozen perpetually and then disgarded.

To follow the logic, you take an embryo and implant "it" and pregnancy occurs. Well the child finished developing and is born. Tell me the difference between the embryo that is frozen in development and the one that was born. The only difference is opportunity to live and time.

So in short, yes I'm against fertility treatments that develop reserves of embryos for just in case scenarios.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Mon, 08-02-2004 - 12:28pm
"By the same token, your religious renders you in the same position. Sience and religion have faught since the 14th century--science won, and it will win again."

Wrong. My "religion" doesn't inhibit my ability to make logical and rational decisions.

My believes guide me with principals, I am no blind follower of any official doctrine. The 14th century's battle of science and religion was more a battle of science and a church trying to protect its control and influence over their reality.

Having religious beliefs does not remove your ability to make rational decisions.

Next.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 08-02-2004 - 12:58pm

As you state you're against the whole "embryo research are all areas of science where we are messing with human lives at one stage of development or the other".

As the following facts in the article states, see below, that natural reproduction is

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Mon, 08-02-2004 - 1:23pm
Therefore to not waste/destroy embryos should one have intercourse only when one wishes to reproduce?

of course not.


Do you, or those that believe as you do, feel guilt for those wasted embryos?

I can't speak for others but a natural process is just that natural. To follow out this logic what you would need to do to reproduce the natural way is to implant each embryo. If the embryo dies than so be it, but failing to give "it" a chance at life is the fundamental difference.

Are you also against BC?

Depends on your definition of BC. Stopping conception from occuring is one thing (pill, condoms, spermacides, etc.) However I am against all forms of "BC" that occurs after conception.

"I don't so much find your beliefs "out there", but I find it strange that those that care so much about a few cells are against many social programmes, say nationalized health care, for people that are fully formed humans."

This makes it sound like I care about a few cells but not adults. That isn't true. I am against nationalized health care but it has nothing to do with care or lack there of for a fellow human being. There is no correlation there.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2003
Mon, 08-02-2004 - 3:24pm
I agree with President Bush's stand on this issue, and I'm glad he hasn't changed his position. It would be easy to let emotions take over right now after President Reagan's death. It's a mark of a true leader--President Bush knows where he stands on an issue and doesn't bow to the current politically-correct opinion.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Mon, 08-02-2004 - 6:39pm
<>

You can have bias and still make rational decisions. OK, if you say so.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Mon, 08-02-2004 - 9:25pm
<>

"You can have bias and still make rational decisions. OK, if you say so."

Whatever. I'll not debate my ability to be rational with you. Your bias bleeds through well enough.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 08-02-2004 - 10:59pm

"Bush knows where he stands on an issue"


Does he?

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-01-2004
Wed, 08-04-2004 - 2:48pm
"So in short, yes I'm against fertility treatments that develop reserves of embryos for just in case scenarios. "

Vader, my friend, it would be easy for you or I to pass that sort of judgement of this practice because we both have children and I know I haven't felt the desperation associated with several failures to conceive a child. But I can imagine. Gosh, I made the choice of sterilization and have periods where I (literally) ache to have another baby. I could only imagine what it would be like if it wasn't just a passing emotional phase, or I couldn't look at the children I have and know that I have already been blessed.

I think one must be sensitive, when considering their beliefs and how far to extend those, and look at childless couples and try to imagine what it would be like to carry a child, experience a pregnancy, experience birth and then raise a child and be faced with the fact that it may never happen.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-01-2004
Wed, 08-04-2004 - 2:59pm
"I can't speak for others but a natural process is just that natural. To follow out this logic what you would need to do to reproduce the natural way is to implant each embryo. If the embryo dies than so be it, but failing to give "it" a chance at life is the fundamental difference. "

There are times though, that you have to look beyond your beliefs and see how your beliefs may adversly affect another. A good example would be the fact that I just recently (this was a shocker to me) found out that my husband doesn't *personally* believe in BC. He believes if it happens, it happens. However, when I started bringing up the subject of sterilization after the birth of our son (who was born the day before our daughter's first birthday), he agreed, and even went as far as to be the one sterilized because it is an easier, less invasive process for a man. He put his own personal beliefs aside for me, and for our family. We'd had two children while I was using BC, fertility obviously was not an issue for us. I was not warm to the thought of having enough children to form our own basketball team. He knew that, and knew that financially no more children was better for us. He consented. Sometimes you have to take yourself and your feelings out of the equation for a clearer view.