I just finished reading an article by Chuck Colson about the issue of ESC Research and it's supporters using the death of Ronald Reagan as a means to justify this type of research. Mr. Colson points out one such writer, New York Times columnist William Safire, who apparently feels that the biotech industry will move forward with ESC whether the government likes it or not, and that the government should act to direct it into "morally acceptable ends". Wait a minute, isn't that what Bush is doing by banning ESC in the first place? Banning this form of stem cell research forces many scientists to utilize alternative ways of experimenting and allows the more feasible methods, i.e. Adult-Stem Cell research to come to surface. How would allowing a morally questionable practice be directing it into "morally acceptable ends"?
America putting its stamp of approval on ESC research in the name of so called "progress" is absurd. And riding the coat-tails of a dead president who obviously cannot comment on such an issue is silly and disrespectful. Even though Mrs. Reagan has come out for ESC research, it doesn't speak to what her husband would have supported. Mr. Colson in his article points out that Mr. Reagan would not have supported ESC research and proves and points to security adviser and close personal friend William Clark, who stated in the New York Times that Mr. Reagan, towards the end of his presidency, had signed a "moratorium" on grants for certain types of fetal experimentation. Clark also cites Mr. Reagan's speech given in 1983 condemning the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire" where he strongly expressed his stand on the value of all human life. Mr. Colson writes:
"Clark knew his friend's mind on this subject very well. In his famous "Evil Empire" speech of March 1983, which most recall as solely an indictment of the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan spoke strongly against the denigration of innocent human life, writes Clark. 'And [Reagan] favored bills in Congress that would have given every human being at all stages of development, protection as a person under the 14th Amendment. Reagan also favored a Human Life Amendment which defines life as beginning at conception."
So how can it be that Mr. Reagan stood so strongly against this form of research and now his wife seems to support it all out? Mr. Colson concludes that Mrs. Reagan who is obviously devastated from the suffering and eventual death of her husband, as a result looks favorably on ESC research, and I might ad, without really contemplating its ramifications, but just not wanting to see another suffer the same fate. This is the plight of many in this country and around the world. The scientists and groups in support of ESC do not tell the whole story and they fill these people's heads with altruistic notions and empty promises of medical breakthroughs through the use of ESC research, yet the evidence shows otherwise, as I stated in my previous post. We've got to get the truth out to the people so that they will be able to make an infomed choice and not get caught up with emotion and rhetoric, as Mrs. Reagan unfortunately is right now.