I know that Nancy is an advocate of stem cell research. You're not telling us anything new or shocking here.
Her husband was the conservative in the family... not Nancy so much.
I just got the impression that Rojo was basically trying to show some sort of irony (or sarcasm) to the fact that Reagan, who opposed stem cell research for various diseases as Alzheimers, died of the disease.
And yes, I think it was tacky, and not appropriate for the intent
of this thread.
And maybe that goes back to the simple fact that Reagan's conviction's, and millions of others too, concerning the sanctity of life (even of the unborn), saw it as immoral to harvest human beings simply for the purpose of medical experiments/research? Reagan had his faults; but I dont think he would have changed his stance to one of self-serving on this issue. Even if the end result is for something good, the end does not always justify the means. And that is simply the way alot of people feel in this country, me included, and I don't feel ashamed over that stance one bit.
IMO... it's bad enough, and immoral, that we are murdering our unborn...so now lets utilize them for medical research/experimentation?
Are there any limitations at all as to how far we take this? Do we start marketing the "positive side" of abortions now, and all the good we can make from them? Do we now start cloning humans soley for the purpose of harvesting their organs, etc., for medical research?
I sometimes wonder if so many people, who are huge animal rights advocates, and cringe at the thought of how animals are used (whether raising for food or medical experimentation), hold the same feelings of outrage towards stem cell research and abortion on human beings
? They probably don't see any hypocrisy at all in that stance if they do, as they value animal life more precious and worthy of protection over a human life in this particular case.