Posted on 06/11/2004 11:51:36 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- In an editorial printed in Friday's New York Times, Reagan adviser William Clark said the former president would have opposed the use of embryonic stem cell research and the destruction of human life that accompanies it.
"Ronald Reagan had not passed from this life for 48 hours before proponents of human embryonic stem-cell research began to suggest that such ethically questionable scientific work should be promoted under his name," Clark wrote.
"But this cannot honestly be done without ignoring President Reagan's own words and actions," Clark, national security adviser and secretary of the interior under President Reagan, added.
Clark said that Reagan instituted a policy that shows he almost certainly would oppose embryonic stem cell research.
"After the charter expired for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare's ethical advisory board -- which in the 1970's supported destructive research on human embryos -- he began a de facto ban on federal financing of embryo research that he held to throughout his presidency," Clark explained.
Clark said that one of the highlights of Reagan's presidency, for Reagan, was his ability the highlight the injustice done to unborn children through abortion. President Reagan enjoyed protecting the sanctity of human life and Clark said the former president told him he wished he could have done more on the issue.
"One of the things he regretted most at the completion of his presidency in 1989, he told me, was that politics and circumstances had prevented him from making more progress in restoring protection for unborn human life," Clark wrote in the Times op-ed.
Reagan was the only president to write a book while in office. In "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation," written to defend human life and encourage pro-life advocates, Reagan rejects a "quality of life" ethic.
"We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life," Reagan wrote.
Writing about the value of all human life, Reagan quoted the British writer Malcolm Muggeridge's statement that "however low it flickers or fiercely burns, it is still a divine flame which no man dare presume to put out, be his motives ever so humane and enlightened."
Like pro-life advocates, Clark said political leaders need only look at the marketplace to see where investors think there will be significant scientific progress.
Investors are not bankrolling embryonic stem cell research -- which explains in part the push for government funding. However, they are backing the use of adult stem cells, which have already proven more effective in clinical trials.
"Mr. Reagan'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," Clark wrote.
"Those who would trade on Ronald Reagan's legacy should first consider his own words," Clark concluded.
I don't understand why there is such misleading information out there regarding the stem cell research. His last sentence says it all. Adult stem cell (not to mention imbilical cord cells as well) have actually helped cure disease. Embryonic stem cells have cured none and the "hopes" of scientists are just that. In tests done the cells have actually been rejected in most cases. We really need to get the word out on this.
Embryonic stem cells were tried on a Parkinson's patient and had a very negative effect. Seems I recall the cells grew widly out of control and made the person profoundly worse.
btt
I don't like when words are put into the mouths of the dead, whether I agree with the speculation or not. The Dems are obviously trying to capitalize on the Reagan publicity by doing so; Republicans shouldn't foster that kind of debate by responding. It's a disservice to Reagan's memory, regardless of what he 'would have' said or done.
Personally, I can't imagine RR being in favor of any embryonic research, even if he knew that he himself might benefit. He was that type of Man.
Some (namely our liberal friends) would argue that simplicity in a man makes one a poor leader. It is the opposite that is really true. You know what the great leaders position on an issue is going to be without having to hear them say it. Great leaders work on core values and principles that never change.
I would have bet my life savings that Reagan would not support the manufacture and destruction of a new life to save his own.
Reagan did not demand the lives of children be sacrificed to find a cure for his illness. Yeah he's no Christopher Reeves.
Oh don't start. I have a neighbor who drives a Volvo with a bumper sticker stating "Jesus would have been a liberal".
That's just as valid as this kind of article.
How so?
Maybe you should read the article. Reagan was pretty steadfast on his position on these issues.
"After the charter expired for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare's ethical advisory board -- which in the 1970's supported destructive research on human embryos -- he began a de facto ban on federal financing of embryo research that he held to throughout his presidency," Clark explained.
Clark said that one of the highlights of Reagan's presidency, for Reagan, was his ability the highlight the injustice done to unborn children through abortion. President Reagan enjoyed protecting the sanctity of human life and Clark said the former president told him he wished he could have done more on the issue.
Nancy let her emotions get the better of her when she looked for this to help her husband.
BTTT
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.