From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Mon Dec 23 2002 - 16:57:08 MST
In a message dated 12/23/2002 4:05:13 PM Central Standard Time,
natashavita@earthlink.net writes: From: Dehede011@aol.com "One of Reagan's
White House assistants, Michael Deaver, says in the article that when he was
told that "some conservatives contend that Ronald Reagan would never have
approved of embryonic stem cell research, he retorted, 'Ronald Reagan didn't
have to take care of Ronald Reagan for the last 10 years."
Then Natasha answers: "This is the profound, yet disturbing, truth of
it all. Natasha"
When I was in about the 4th or 5th grade we read Huckleberry Finn. I learned
about how people opposed Doctors performing autopsies to learn how the human
body functions. Soon afterwards I learned how an associate of the
Montgolfier Brothers was pitch forked to death by French farmers when their
balloon landed on a farm. The stories of opposition to science went on and
on.
Even in talking to neighboring farmers I encountered the same
ignorance although thank goodness not the violence. I think the Moon landing
was the last time I encountered that sentiment.
Even at that young age I had to decide which side I was going to come
down on.
I think the great tragedy would be if we backed down before those
folks trying to stop the advancement of science.
Fortunately this thread has brought out two good counter arguments:
1. The government can ban the research only here. A buddy of mine used this
basic argument once. He and his wife were having major problems and she
threatened to cut him off from her sexual favors. His answer: remember you
can only cut me off from you. The political leaders have to know their power
has limits. They can only stop us in the U. S. and only during their term.
2. People have to know they are being cut off from the relief to their pain.
W has a father and mother in the age range to benefit from this research.
Has someone else got another point?
Ron h.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:51 MST