The latest C-Poll is closed. You can read all about it here!

March 9, 2009

Nancy Reagan's stance on Embryonic SC research understandable, and wrong

Predictably, Ronald Reagan's widow Nancy has issued a statement praising Obama's reversal of W's stem cell policy:
Under fire from congressional Republicans for lifting restrictions on stem-cell research, President Barack Obama got a powerful endorsement for his move Monday from Nancy Reagan, the former’s president’s wife.

“I’m very grateful that President Obama has lifted the restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research,” she wrote in a statement released shortly after Obama reversed the Bush administration limits. “These new rules will now make it possible for scientists to move forward. I urge researchers to make use of the opportunities that are available to them, and to do all they can to fulfill the promise that stem cell research offers."

Nancy Reagan has been an outspoken advocate of stem-cell research – and scientists hope that the research could someday lead to a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, which afflicted her late husband, Ronald Reagan.

Her statement also illustrates how support for the research crosses party lines, even though many in the anti-abortion movement strongly oppose the research on moral and ethical grounds.
Ever since her husband was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease, Nancy has been an ardent proponent of doing whatever it takes to research a cure. The fact that it involves the destruction of living embryos is irrelevant. The fact that her husband would have strongly opposed her point of view is also irrelevant.

This is heartbreakingly personal for her. But that doesn't make it right.


Anonymous said...

my only question is how would you know that her husband "would have strongly opposed her point of view" as factual and not what you want to believe?

Tim said...

President Reagan was an outspoken champion for the cause of the unborn. Even his detractors acknowledge this, and despise him for it. His unwavering stance on this issue is one of the reasons I gladly voted for him in both 1980 and 1984.

It's not a great leap at all to infer that he would oppose the certain destruction of one life for the theoretical benefit of another life.