Posted on 10/15/2004 2:43:43 PM PDT by Former Military Chick
Reeves was in his last days a shill for Kerry.
His selfish belief that human embryos should be used to help him and others to walk is deplorable.
Nothing about his "activism" was "courageous" or "brave".
He wanted to kill babies to use their stem cells. What a legacy.
Good article. If you get a chance to catch Charles Krauthammer's Column today do so.
He really takes Fluffy to task on this subject.
Alrighty, I think we will have to agree to disagree.
Good old Mort! Another ideologue blinded by his own wife's tragedy to buy into the embryo Stem Cells lie! Hey Mort, forgot to tell the public that embryonic cells cause tumors! Cure your wife and then watch her die of cancer! What a great trade off!
It seems to me that even if fetal stem cells could cure all ills, you'd still have the problem of tissue rejection. Why, because the cells are not yours. That, in and of it self would be the best reason for adult stem cell research. If the cells are yours, there's know reason to kill babies.
George Bush is the first president to approve federal funding for stem cell research. There are 22 lines of stem cells now available, up from one just two years ago. As Leon Kass, head of the President's Council on Bioethics, has written, there are 3,500 shipments of stem cells waiting for anybody who wants them.
very brave of you to post this....
the hate some of these "Christians" have for the man is amazing to me.....
The left will continually use this as a hammer to bash over conservatives heads. They need to get the message out that the President HAS NOT cut spending and without him, there WOULD BE NO spending on it at this time.
Just my .02...have a good day...
Hedonistic virtue should not be rewarded with praise or tax dollars.
I think it is a tragedy when anyone is afflicted with a terminal or debilitating condition, but aren't these celebrities just a little embarrassed by virtue of the fact that they become activists only after THEY are afflicted? I mean, only Jerry Lewis is an activist that can legitamately claim a noble motive. (Before I get flamed, I think AIDS activism is just a political bandwagon.)
I happen to enjoy what Mort has to say. I do not always agree with him, but, it is worth reading.
I am amazed at what some have to say about Reeves. Some even on this thread have posted a few untruthful facts. But, to try and say otherwise would be a waste of my breath.
Indeed Bush has put energy into this subject. It is misleading I believe to say, Reeve would have walked if stem cells were available for research. I do not see it that way, Edwards is off, Ron Reagan is incorrect.
But, we are going to do all we can do to find a cure,may not be in my lifetime but we are not going to stop.
Thanks for the kind post.
I do not think your point of view should be flamed. Recently I heard why we give hero status to folks like Reeves.
Well, did folks not make him a millionaire by seeing his movies. I think people have a vested in interest in a guy like Reeves. He was injured and found he could not do what he did, but had a voice about his injury.
Jerry Lewis is a fine man. Frankly I do not question the motives of those who are trying to find a cure for any disease. I will be as informed as I can be and balance that with what I read. Thanks for the post.
Former MD Gov./Balto.Mayor William Donald Schaefer was chastized for saying "I don't feel sorry for them. They brought it upon themselves." (referring to AIDS victims) Stats show that 90% of AIDS brought on by victims lifestyle and behavior (sex and drugs). Is it our fault Reeves fell off a horse? Were we to kill the unborn to help him to walk again? I guess the answers are clear to Michael J. Fox, Ronnie Jr., Kerry and company. I bet if Kerry needed a heart transplant and I was a match these ghouls would see to it that I met an untimely brain death.
The presumption Mort makes is that there is no moral problem with destroying 5-day-old embryos.
That is not a safe presumption to make.
If you allow the use of these embryos "to be discarded" you legitimize the creation of same.
From there, it is indeed a short step to "therapeutic" human cloning.
This is a very dangerous road to travel down, and we have seen in the past what happens when medical research is detached from moral concerns.
Be careful, I got suspended for saying stuff like that.
I can't find it now, but I just read an article quoting Christopher Reeve from a Reader's Digest interview. He said he did not think embryonic stem cells would cure his paralysis.
You make an excellent point. I do worry about the slippery slope.
But, oddly enough folks seem to not worry about envitro. Many embryos are lost through this process?
There are many "moral" issues with regard to this and many research methods.
Frankly I had heard him say that as well. I think there is so much raw feelings on this subject that many of facts are being misquoted.
In the end, he wanted to find a cure for this and many other diseases and I understand that. We just have different methods to achieve this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.