posted on June 23, 2004 07:10:13 PM new
I'm With My Dad on Stem Cell Research
by Michael Reagan
Posted Jun 23, 2004
I'm getting a little tired of the media's insistence on reporting that the Reagan "family" is in favor of stem cell research, when the truth is that two members of the family have been long time foes of this process of manufacturing human beings--my dad, Ronald Reagan during his lifetime, and me.
The media should keep in mind that we are also members of the Reagan "family" and my father, as do I, opposed the creation of human embryos for the sole purpose of using their stem cells as possible medical cures.
Moreover, using the widely promoted and thoroughly discredited junk science argument that stem cell research can lead to a cure of Alzheimer's disease, the media and proponents of stem cell research have suggested that had the research been done a long time ago, my dad might have avoided the ordeal he endured. This is junk science at its worst.
As William Clark, Dad's national security advisor, Interior secretary and one of my dad's closest friends and aides wrote in a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times, my father's "suffering under Alzheimer's disease was tragic, and we should do everything we can that is ethically proper to help others afflicted with it. But I have no doubt that he would have urged our nation to look to adult stem cell research--which has yielded many clinical successes--and away from the destruction of developing human lives, which has yielded none." And he added contemptuously, "Those who would trade on Ronald Reagan's legacy should first consider his own words."
Here's what my father said way back in 1983. "My administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning."
To make matters worse, those arguing for embryonic stem cells have embarked on a campaign of disinformation, claiming that there are scientific reasons for believing that their research can be expected to lead to a cure for Alzheimer's disease.
Listen to what Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke told the Washington Post: "People need a fairy tale," he said, explaining why scientists have allowed society to believe wrongly that stem cells are likely to effectively treat Alzheimer's disease. He added, "Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand."
A story line that is a flat out lie.
Writing in the Weekly Standard, lawyer, ethicist and human life advocate Wesley J. Smith reported that "Researchers have apparently known for some time that embryonic stem cells will not be an effective treatment for Alzheimer's, because as two researchers told a Senate subcommittee in May, it is a 'whole brain disease,' rather than a cellular disorder (such as Parkinson's). This has generally been kept out of the news. But now, Washington Post correspondent Rick Weiss, has blown the lid off of the scam, reporting that while useful abstract information might be gleaned about Alzheimer's through embryonic stem cell research, 'stem cell experts confess . . . that of all the diseases that may be someday cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit.'"
But people like Nancy Reagan have been allowed to believe otherwise, "a distortion" Weiss writes that "is not being aggressively corrected by scientists." Why? The false story line helps generate public support for the biotech political agenda. As Weiss noted, "It [Nancy Reagan's statement in support of ESCR] is the kind of advocacy that researchers have craved for years, and none wants to slow its momentum."
Yet, unlike the hyped embryonic stem cell research, adult stem cell research is already paying dividends. According to Michael Fumento, one of the nation's most skilled debunkers of junk science, "Over the horizon are so-called adult stem cells (ASCs), extracted from people of any age and from umbilical cords and placentas. Not only don't they carry the moral baggage of embryonic stem cells (ESCs), but research with them is much further along."
"Unfortunately," Fumento added, "embryonic stem cell researchers have so powerful a PR machine that many influential people don't even know there's an alternative."
Note to the media: Next time you write about the "family" remember both dad and me. It's our family too.
Mr. Reagan is the son of Ronald Reagan and a syndicated radio talk-show host.
"The natural family is a man and woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of:
*the continuation of the human species,
*the rearing of children,
*the regulation of sexuality,
*the provision of mutual support and protection,
*the creation of an altruistic domestic economy, and
*the maintenance of bonds between the generations."
posted on June 23, 2004 07:32:39 PM new
I have to disagree.
I am against abortion.
It's a horrible waste of life.
HOWEVER... It *IS* legal.
I didn't get to vote on it, but it is in fact legal and happens hundreds of times a day across the nation.
If hundreds of potential babies are going be allowed to die every day, shouldn't SOMETHING positive come of it? It's not like anyone is getting pregnant just so their fetuses can be expirimented on, these abortions are going to happen anyway.
If you don't like abortion, then fight to have it banned. In the meantime, why not try to learn something from these fetuses?
[ edited by replaymedia on Jun 23, 2004 07:33 PM ]
posted on June 23, 2004 07:43:39 PM new
replaymedia I agree, if the courts are going to allow abortion then maybe it should be done but Abortion should not be legal so therefore I am against it.
posted on June 23, 2004 08:19:20 PM new
So how did Michael Reagans statement against stem cell research get to the legality of abortions?
"The natural family is a man and woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of:
*the continuation of the human species,
*the rearing of children,
*the regulation of sexuality,
*the provision of mutual support and protection,
*the creation of an altruistic domestic economy, and
*the maintenance of bonds between the generations."
posted on June 23, 2004 09:14:55 PM new
I'd rather let my brain turn to mush than to cannibalize stem cells from human embryos. The lefties are gonna have some explaining to do on Judgement Day.
"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
posted on June 23, 2004 09:17:20 PM new
replaymedia or Libra - [Since both of you agree on this subject]
Please correct me if I'm wrong but it has been my understanding that stem cell research *could not* be done [from aborted fetuses] but rather needs to be from a 'live' embryo. And that's why many who oppose this being done see it as producing a life to take life.
My understanding is that you are correct- you cannot just scrounge through an abortion clinic's garbage can and come up with the bits you need. The fetus needs to be removed and the cells need to be removed from a live (or at least really fresh) fetus.
But any abortion clinic should be able to start "saving" fetuses if stem cell research were legalized.
Instead of trashing the removed bits, they would either freeze them or remove the cells right then.
This just gets grosser and grosser!
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on June 23, 2004 09:49:20 PM new
Logistically impossible, imo replay. Most abortions are done in regular exam rooms, not in a surgical [read germ free] room. The more advanced pregnancies that are done in a surgical room would be contaminated by the dialation method used to open the cervix.
And they aren't done in such a way as to allow that follow-up to be immediately done. [removing the stem cell right then and there.]
Now...freezing...I don't know if what they need would survive after being frozen. Good question.
But again from what I understand through reading about this the *cord blood* from a live birth would be just as useful as would a embryo's stem cell. And therefore many feel this is supporting an un-necessary taking of human life.
posted on June 23, 2004 10:26:30 PM new
IMO men should stay out of the abortion rights arguement. It's a womans rights issue & I stand by the right of women to judge for themselves what is in their best intrest.
So I guess you could say I am neither pro or anti abortion, but pro woman.
"The natural family is a man and woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of:
*the continuation of the human species,
*the rearing of children,
*the regulation of sexuality,
*the provision of mutual support and protection,
*the creation of an altruistic domestic economy, and
*the maintenance of bonds between the generations."
posted on June 24, 2004 09:05:21 AM new
IMO men should stay out of the abortion rights arguement. It's a womans rights issue & I stand by the right of women to judge for themselves what is in their best intrest.
Granted the woman has to carry the fetus, but without the man the woman would not be carrying the fetus in the first place. The biological father should have a say as to whether or not the woman has an abortion.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
June is Gay Pride Month
------------------------------
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Change is constant. The history of mankind is about change. One set of beliefs is pushed aside by a new set. The old order is swept away by the new. If people become attached to the old order, they see their best interest in defending it. They become the losers. They become the old order and in turn are vulnerable. People who belong to the new order are winners.
James A Belaco & Ralph C. Stayer
posted on June 24, 2004 11:38:19 AM new
logansdad- I agree with you on this issue. I never understood when a woman says my baby. It should be our baby. Both need to take responsibility for that child. If a women gets an abortion without the fathers consent is wrong. But then of course she can claim she didn't know who the father was.
More and more childless couples are going abroad to adopt children as there are not many here anymore and I think that is due to abortion. That child also has rights and one is the right to be born whether the mother or father want it. Adoption is the way to go and I wish they would see that. Every Child needs a chance at life.
posted on June 24, 2004 04:51:40 PM new
::More and more childless couples are going abroad to adopt children as there are not many here anymore and I think that is due to abortion.::
Thank god if it is. Personally though, I think that arguement is pure crap.
If a couple truly wants a child, all they need to do is go to DCS - there are thousands of children in our country that are desperate for loving parents and a stable situation. People are going overseas because they feel that in this case beggers can be choosers. If they can't get a baby fast enough in the US they'll just go elsewhere.
On the upside, at least those children will not grow up parentless.
I find it incredibly amusing that as you sit there and constantly drum in your belief that it is a parents responsibility and not the governments to raise and their fund their children you turn right around and say those same people do not have the right to decide whether or not they WANT to be a parent. You talk about people only having as many children as they can afford and then find fault with those that do exactly that.
Welcomel to the wonderful world of conservative hypocracy.
Logan - you can have the right to decide whether a woman gets to go thru 9 unwanted months of discomfort, medical expenses, mood swings etc the day after you put forth a $30k surety bond and sign a contract accepting full financial responsibility of the child. You see, now that you have decided that you get to controling interst in a womans mind and body, you also get full financial rsponsibiliity. All additional expenses incured during this time from food to medical to lost time from work now becomes the responsibility of the man that decided that he had the right to override the rights and opinions of the woman. Somehow though... I don't see that one happening.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Jun 24, 2004 06:01 PM ]
posted on June 24, 2004 05:26:20 PM new
Oh darling, darling airy fairy Libra....Lib, dear, when's the last time you took in an 11-year-old girl, clothed and fed her, sent her to school and then paid for the birth of her baby fathered by father or Uncle Bob....then adopted both children for ever and ever???? How many fetal alcohol children,coke babies with their huge medical expenses or any other unwanted children have YOU adopted????
How many neo-cons are willing to do that....not many....they'd just rather preach the evils of abortion because THEY know they're rich enough to send any of THEIR women (or children) to Europe, have a nice quick, clean abortion, do a little shopping in Paris and be home in time for bridge on Monday.
Again, neo-cons don't give a damn about innocent little children...just "punishing" the woman who bears them.
posted on June 25, 2004 10:23:17 AM newLogan - you can have the right to decide whether a woman gets to go thru 9 unwanted months of discomfort, medical expenses, mood swings etc the day after you put forth a $30k surety bond and sign a contract accepting full financial responsibility of the child. You see, now that you have decided that you get to controling interst in a womans mind and body, you also get full financial rsponsibiliity. All additional expenses incured during this time from food to medical to lost time from work now becomes the responsibility of the man that decided that he had the right to override the rights and opinions of the woman. Somehow though... I don't see that one happening.
Heh, I like that. I'm a man but I think men who think they have a deciding vote on abortion are more than a little off base. If, as a man, I want some say in the matter, the time to get my point across is before I have sex with a woman. Call me crazy but since pregnancy is one possible result of having sex (regardless of birth control used), its my responsibility to know what her intentions are before I impregnate her. In other words, as a man, I have my "say" by not sleeping with someone who holds a view on abortion I'm not comfortable with.
posted on June 25, 2004 02:36:01 PM new
It is a man's body and he can do with it as he wishes. Oh, wait, there is a war and he just got drafted for the duration. He serves or goes to jail.
It is a woman's body and she can do with it as she wishes. Oh, wait, there is a pregnancy and she just got drafted for the duration. She delivers or goes to jail.
What is good for the goose....
______________________
You know...the best way to defeat a liberal is to let them speak.
