Nancy Reagan, in a Whisper, Fights Bush Over Stem Cells

The NY Times ^ | September 29, 2002 | By ALESSANDRA STANLEY

[RJCogburn]

Stay with me for a moment.

There are basically two arguments that occur on these stem cell threads.

I generally limit my remarks to the first one, which is whether or not stem cell therapies might work in the future, whether adult stem cells or cord cells have the same potential in therapy as embryonic stem cells, and similar questions. I try to point out that despite assertions on all sides, we simply do not know and cannot know without research, which I advocate.

The second question is not a question of science,but of belief....are embryos people, when does life begin, and the like. I generally do not comment that as it is an argument more on faith and people are unlikely to be persuaded one way or the other.

President Bush has approved some research on embryonic stem cells, so it will proceed. I'd prefer that no governent money be used in that or any other research not directly related to the national defense.

[RJCogburn]

To me those factors would suggest that research in that direction would be more useful than research with embryonic stem cells. Am I wrong in my thinking somewhere?

I don't think you are wrong, but we don't know the answer and that is why one does research.

[Artist]

"Let's not be naive, the NY Times is supporting this because they love abortion. And they are using Nancy Reagan's name to revive the issue bacause they hope to split conservatives."

Nancy was pro-abortion before her husband became ill, so this is just another excuse to celebrate her "wisdom" on this issue.

All in all, it's very disheartening to know that Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush and Laura Bush are all pro-abortion rights. I'm sure the other three would have no problem lining up with Nancy on this too.

[montag813]

Also, no offence to Nancy, but stem cell research is not outlawed by Fed Gov, only direct Fed funding for it. If it had real promise, the market would make it economically viable for private research, ethics aside.

This is an excellent point. The big drug compaines are too cheap to take on the research itself. Like with AIDS drugs and cancer drugs they want the taxpayer to pay for the hard work, so they can swoop in a grab the cheap patents for mass-production. If they REALY BELIEVE this would do it, they should spend tens of billions it it themselves.

[aimhigh]

Anybody with a small tiny of Alzheimers knows that stem cells will never offer an Alzheimer's patient any hope of recovery
Yours is an assertion that may or may not be correct. The certainty with which you make it is fatuous.

No, it's a matter of logic. Stem cells are used to replace existing cells. Are you going to replace someone's brain by growing a new one, and then expect the same person to exist? Pure logic.

[RJCogburn]

No, it's a matter of logic.

Fuzzy logic, I'm afraid.