June 11, 2004
A CAUSE HE"D BE APPALLED BY:
For Reagan, All Life Was Sacred (WILLIAM P. CLARK, 6/11/04, NY Times)
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. But this cannot honestly be done without ignoring President Reagan's own words and actions.Ronald Reagan's record reveals that no issue was of greater importance to him than the dignity and sanctity of all human life. "My administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land," he said in 1983. "And there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning." 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. [...]
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. Those who would trade on Ronald Reagan's legacy should first consider his own words.
This would seem dispositive:
Emancipation Proclamation of Preborn ChildrenNOW THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death, and I do proclaim, ordain, and declare that I will take care that the Constitution and laws of the United States are faithfully executed for the protection of America's unborn children. Upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, I invoke the considerate judgement of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God. I also proclaim Sunday, January 17, 1988, as a national Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon the citizens of this blessed land to gather on that day in their homes and places of worship to give thanks for the gift of life they enjoy and to reaffirm their commitment to the dignity of every human being and sanctity of every human life.
Ronald Reagan
Presidential Proclamation
January 14, 1988
MORE: (via Mike Daley):
Ending Alzheimer's (Michael Fumento, June 10, 2004, Scripps Howard News Service)
Currently there are five FDA-approved drugs for Alzheimer's, although
unfortunately they only provide a brief restoration of some capabilities.
But as of late last year there were 18 drugs in human trials to combat
various aspects of Alzheimer's, according to the Pharmaceutical Researchers
and Manufacturers Association. Half were in the final stage of testing or
awaiting FDA approval.
Over the horizon are so-called "adult stem cells" (ASCs), extracted from
people of any age and from umbilical cords and placentas. Not only don't
they carry the moral baggage of embryonic stem cells (ESCs), but research
with them is much further along.Indeed, several studies have converted stem cells from both marrow and the
central nervous system into brain cells. Stem Cells, Inc. of Palo Alto,
Calif., for example, has purified stem cells from human brain tissue,
multiplied them, then transplanted these into mouse brains. There they grew
into human neurons and surrounding brain tissue called glia. Thus it appears
we have the building blocks of brain repair for Alzheimer's and other
neurological diseases; we just need to figure out how to use them.Unfortunately, embryonic stem cell researchers have so powerful a PR machine
that many influential people don't even know there's an alternative. Thus
Nancy Reagan is a staunch ESC research supporter, while a CNN anchor
declared incredulously: "Ronald Reagan's death from Alzheimer's has not
changed the president's stance on (ESC) research."
(via Kevin Whited)
Liberalizing His Legacy (George Neumayr, 6/10/04, American Spectator)
Phase one of the campaign to liberalize Reagan is their attempt to turn him into a posthumous supporter of embryonic stem-cell research. "Reagan's Next Victory," says the New York Times. Ellen Goodman, who never had any use for Reagan before, says, "This is the final one to win for the Gipper."Posted by Orrin Judd at June 11, 2004 2:01 PMA campaign that treats human embryos as spare parts for research is the antithesis of Reagan's legacy. He did not defeat godless humanism in the Soviet Union so that it could spread in the United States. Reagan reviled the Communists for denying the dignity and value of human life in the pursuit of utilitarian dreams, and he deplored the same crass utilitarianism when it appeared in America.
"We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life -- the unborn -- without diminishing the value of all human life," Reagan wrote as president (which the media ignore when making their case that he was an indifferent pro-lifer).
It's a safe bet that if God Himself had come to Reagan before the onset of his Alzheimers and said, "I can prevent you from succumbing to this terrible disease, but I'll have to kill a child to do it." Reagan would have said "We both know it isn't worth something that horrible. I'll take whatever comes my way..."
Posted by: M. Murcek at June 11, 2004 4:33 PMWhat if Reagan could have been saved by using the remains of a child which would have been killed anyway ?
Why is it more noble to spurn the use of tissue from murdered children, rather than to allow their deaths to have some larger meaning ?
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at June 11, 2004 5:01 PMMichael:
What if you could? Would you kill a child on the slight chance it might help down the road towards healing an illness you had in your 80s?
Posted by: oj at June 11, 2004 5:15 PMI note that we learned a lot from rather gruesome German experimentation on Jews during the Third Reich. The Germans were going to kill those folks anyway, so what's the difference, right, Michael?
Posted by: Chris at June 11, 2004 6:27 PM>I note that we learned a lot from rather
>gruesome German experimentation on Jews during
>the Third Reich.
The NSDAP took Eugenics (which was veh-ry fah-shionable at the time) at its word and carried through on it to the max.
A side effect was discrediting Eugenics for the next 50-60 years. But their example is now passing out of living memory; "Remember the Holocaust!" has shrunk into not only "just a Jewish thing", but almost a definition of secular Judaism.
Chesterton wrote that "Nine out of ten 'new ideas' are really Old Mistakes. But to a generation that was not alive the last time those mistakes were made, they seem like Fresh New Ideas." (To which I would add "What could possibly go wrong?")
Now the Holocaust is passing out of living memory, Naziism has become a mythical pulp-villain evil, Hitler a mythical god of evil (and a synonym for George W Bush), and Eugenics is growing back in the form of genetic screening, genetic engineering, designer babies, and stem-cells. Such a Fresh New Idea that promises Paradise -- What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
Posted by: Ken at June 11, 2004 8:08 PMI don't know that we learned "a lot" from Hitlerite medicine. We learned something about how people freeze to death, hardly a big public health issue.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 11, 2004 8:25 PM"Why is it more noble to spurn the use of tissue from murdered children, rather than to allow their deaths to have some larger meaning ?"
One reason is that it would allow the mother contemplating an abortion to feel that she is doing something noble by aborting her child. I'm sure that the "counselors" who advise her would build this up as a positive consideration for the decision to abort.
We seem to have come to the conclusion in our modern society that the difficult life is not worth living. I have been very much influenced by Victor Frankl's book on meaning, and in the need to find meaning in our suffering. For the Alzheimer sufferer, he/she can find meaning in their suffering from the knowledge that their treatment does not require the sacrifice of another life.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at June 11, 2004 10:26 PMHarry: Granted it's been a while since I looked into this, but I thought I remembered stuff about the effect of vacuum and low pressure on human anatomy, too. I stand open to correction.
And I daresay any research of that sort is equally tainted, no matter how direct its day to day usefulness.
Posted by: Chris at June 12, 2004 1:07 AM