Nancy Reagan calls for stem cell research

[ThePresence]

Reuters

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif., May 9 (Reuters) - Former First Lady Nancy Reagan made an impassioned call for taking controversial stem cell research out of the political arena, saying it could help cure illnesses like Alzheimer's which so sorely afflicts her husband.

With the Bush administration and anti-abortion groups strongly opposing stem cell research, Mrs. Reagan at a celebrity-packed dinner in Beverly Hills on Saturday night lent a powerful conservative Republican voice to the debate.

Speaking to the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Mrs. Reagan noted that Alzheimer's had taken her husband Ronald Reagan "to a distant place where I can no longer reach him and share our 52 years."

She added after accepting the group's "Care Giver's Award," "Science has presented us with a hope called stem cell research, which may provide our scientists with many answers that for so long have been beyond our grasp. 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."

Letters from former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton supporting Mrs. Reagan's efforts on embryonic stem cell research were read to the dinner by actors Harrison Ford and Calista Flockhart. Absent was any comment from the Bush administration which has placed severe restrictions on stem cell research because it can involve using cells from human embryos.

Organizers of the event, which also raised money for stem cell research, said it was the first time that Mrs. Reagan had made a public speech on the issue although her views have long been known.

Actor Michael J. Fox, a supporter of stem cell research because it could help lead to a cure for Parkinson's disease from which he suffers, told reporters that Mrs. Reagan was taking the issue out of politics.

"For someone like Mrs. Reagan to step outside of political or ideological groupings and just speak to what she believes ... can help people is tremendously valuable," he said.

 

[freegeeks]

good

 

[AcidicFury]

Go Nancy Reagan!

 

[Martin]

That's great, glad to see her advocating this.

 

[Pepsei]

Good for her.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Stem cells should be used, just not ones that require we kill a human.

Poor woman is in pain, then someone comes to her and tells her that killing children could save her husband.

I feel bad for how she's being used by the pro-infanticide left.

 

[Piano Man]

Sweetness.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Bout time, as long as they do it right.

 

[Bowfinger]

Damn liberals.

 

[Slick5150]

It amuses me how it takes a tragedy in their own families to make the morality police decide that maybe these things aren't so bad after all.

 

[LtPage1]

good for nancy.
when will all of the knee-jerk conservatives wake up and remember that the scientific community has said that we could have cures for some of the deadliest diseases of our time if wed allow stem cell research?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: PinwiZ
It amuses me how it takes a tragedy in their own families to make the morality police decide that maybe these things aren't so bad after all.

I'd have to agree with this assesment.

 

[0roo0roo]

goddamned liberals have brainwashed her.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Stem cells should be used, just not ones that require we kill a human.

Poor woman is in pain, then someone comes to her and tells her that killing children could save her husband.

I feel bad for how she's being used by the pro-infanticide left.

Yes, it is a shame, now all the anti-choice people can't say that they just throw the lumps of flesh in a garbage bin any more.

Gotta love the anti-choice people, no abortions, no ru-486, no homo adoptions and 99.5% of them have never adopted a child themselves.

 

[HomerJS]

If your side is so sure when life begins why doesn't Bush move to outlaw invitro. Not all fertilized eggs are used during the process. The remaining are either frozen or discarded.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Originally posted by: PinwiZ
It amuses me how it takes a tragedy in their own families to make the morality police decide that maybe these things aren't so bad after all.

me too.

 

[Moonbeam]

And the Christian right wonders why they are hated. Because of their irrational, unsupportable illogical and insane beliefs real living breathing conscious people will die from diseases that science could cure and all that science intelligence and human advancement will take place elsewhere leaving
America as a primitive Taliban backwater of the world. The Christian, fundamentalist, nut case right, the ant cows, and the preachers that tend and milk them, not only besmirch and destroy real religious they destroy the progress of civilization. They are controlled, not by God, but by the Devil. They are his tool to keep man blind and in the dark, backward, primitive, and ugly.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: PinwiZ
It amuses me how it takes a tragedy in their own families to make the morality police decide that maybe these things aren't so bad after all.

so, killing babies to provide for scientific research is ok?

.....and 99.5% of them have never adopted a child themselves.

maybe it's because they're perfectly capable of having their own biological children...?

 

[IndieSnob]

Wow, a republican changes their views as soon as it serves well for their own doing instead of anyone else. I'm so suprised :roll:

 

[BDawg]

Whatever will the sheep do? Two adults said completely opposite things!

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: PinwiZ
It amuses me how it takes a tragedy in their own families to make the morality police decide that maybe these things aren't so bad after all.

so, killing babies to provide for scientific research is ok?

.....and 99.5% of them have never adopted a child themselves.

maybe it's because they're perfectly capable of having their own biological children...?

Babies?

So fvcking what, you want to save lives you make sacrifices, don't have any of your own, save them from abortion, stand outside abortion clinics and say you will, put your god damn efforts where your mouth is!

You forgot to quote the rest of my post and what your reply really means is "no abortions, as long as it does not bother me".

Let me guess, you are one of these types who whine about welfare mothers too? And womens rights? lol, lemme guess, you are one of them Christian fundamentalists? Are you against divorces too?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: PinwiZ
It amuses me how it takes a tragedy in their own families to make the morality police decide that maybe these things aren't so bad after all.

so, killing babies to provide for scientific research is ok?

.....and 99.5% of them have never adopted a child themselves.

maybe it's because they're perfectly capable of having their own biological children...?

Babies?

So fvcking what, you want to save lives you make sacrifices, don't have any of your own, save them from abortion, stand outside abortion clinics and say you will, put your god damn efforts where your mouth is!

You forgot to quote the rest of my post and what your reply really means is "no abortions, as long as it does not bother me".

Let me guess, you are one of these types who whine about welfare mothers too? And womens rights? lol, lemme guess, you are one of them Christian fundamentalists? Are you against divorces too?

You forgot to ask him about evolution.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: PinwiZ
It amuses me how it takes a tragedy in their own families to make the morality police decide that maybe these things aren't so bad after all.

so, killing babies to provide for scientific research is ok?

According to Nancy Regan, yes.

Of course, I would argue that you're using the word "baby" improperly, but I'm not getting into that argument.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Babies?

So fvcking what, you want to save lives you make sacrifices, don't have any of your own, save them from abortion, stand outside abortion clinics and say you will, put your god damn efforts where your mouth is!

You forgot to quote the rest of my post and what your reply really means is "no abortions, as long as it does not bother me".

Let me guess, you are one of these types who whine about welfare mothers too? And womens rights? lol, lemme guess, you are one of them Christian fundamentalists? Are you against divorces too?

could you edit the first part of your post so it is more coherent. it is so unintelligible that no one other than you can ever hope to gleam some meaning out of it.

but the second part I can answer. no, i dont whine about welfare mothers, but I do feel that welfare needs to be reformed so that welfare STOPS being a handout. womens rights, what more do they need? i dislike the notion of affirmitive action, but liberals will whine and complain if we ever try to abolish it. Am I a Chrisitan Fundementalist. No. But would it matter if I was? It cracks me up that liberals try and support and justify Fundemental Islam, but as soon as you switch religions to Chrisitianity, there seems to be an overwhelming ammount of hatred and fear. And no, i'm not against divorce, but I do feel that divorce is a cop out and is helping to lead to the downfall to western society.

moonbeam, why don't YOU ask me about evolution?

PinwiZ, how am I using the word baby imporoperly. Would you contend that a the being in question becomes a baby only after it is delivered from the womb? If so, then fine, you may change the word baby to child, fetus, or whatever word you liberal heart desires.

 

[tec699]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Babies?

So fvcking what, you want to save lives you make sacrifices, don't have any of your own, save them from abortion, stand outside abortion clinics and say you will, put your god damn efforts where your mouth is!

You forgot to quote the rest of my post and what your reply really means is "no abortions, as long as it does not bother me".

Let me guess, you are one of these types who whine about welfare mothers too? And womens rights? lol, lemme guess, you are one of them Christian fundamentalists? Are you against divorces too?

could you edit the first part of your post so it is more coherent. it is so unintelligible that no one other than you can ever hope to gleam some meaning out of it.

but the second part I can answer. no, i dont whine about welfare mothers, but I do feel that welfare needs to be reformed so that welfare STOPS being a handout. womens rights, what more do they need? i dislike the notion of affirmitive action, but liberals will whine and complain if we ever try to abolish it. Am I a Chrisitan Fundementalist. No. But would it matter if I was? It cracks me up that liberals try and support and justify Fundemental Islam, but as soon as you switch religions to Chrisitianity, there seems to be an overwhelming ammount of hatred and fear. And no, i'm not against divorce, but I do feel that divorce is a cop out and is helping to lead to the downfall to western society.

moonbeam, why don't YOU ask me about evolution?

PinwiZ, how am I using the word baby imporoperly. Would you contend that a the being in question becomes a baby only after it is delivered from the womb? If so, then fine, you may change the word baby to child, fetus, or whatever word you liberal heart desires.

Your stuck in 1950 man!! Get with the times!!