A few days ago, Nancy Reagan came out in favor of stem cell research. As a proponent, I thought this was great news. Having a historically conservative Republican voice take a stand against the Bush White House policy can only be a good thing. But the more I thought about it, something didn’t sit right with me. Part of me admires NR for taking this stand against the current administrations policy on such an important issue, but another part got a little angry that it took a personal tragedy in her own life before (presumably) changing her view on this topic. It’s as if the thousands of others who have been in her situation before did not warrant a (again, presumed) reversal on this topic, but now that things have gotten so bad for her personally, she is willing to change her view.
Just to be clear, I am not pissed off at NR, just conflicted. Am I being too harsh? Does anyone else who is in favor of SSR have these same conflicted feelings? And are there any SSR opponents who are disappointed that NR would (presumably) sacrifice her principles based on a somewhat selfish premise?
I understand your point, but I can also understand Nancy’s reversal.
Was stem cell research even an issue when Reagan was in power? It’s not as if she spoke out against it from a position of power only to renege when the going got tough. (or did she? I was pretty young at the time so someone please correct me if I’m wrong…)
People, in general, form a lot of their opinions/philosophies based on their own life experiences. Nancy has lived first hand the kind of nightmare that stem cell research might eliminate–is it really any wonder that she’s developed an interest in it because of that?
This is fairly typical celebrity-spokesmanship behavior. Think Christopher Reeve—did he ever once mention quad injuries before his own accident? Doubtful. But does that mean the money he’s donated and the exposure he’s given other victims is worthless? I personally don’t think so.
Finally, yes I agree that in an ideal world everyone would give other people the same considerations and support that they themselves would want. But since our world is far from ideal, I think we just have to appreciate these kinds of changes of heart, and accept them as genuine. Should someone with a selfish veiwpoint come to see the error of their ways through personal suffering I see that as a good thing. At least some good can come from the pain, right?
Does anyone have a link saying that she was against stem cell research, as opposed to having no opinion? I can understand the supposed abortion connection, but the linked article seems to imply that she has been in favor of this research for a while, but just went public.
Still, who woulda thunk that Nancy Reagan would be involved in the de-politicization of science?
I work with several stem cell researchers, and thus have pretty strong opnions on this. Nancy does deserve some credit for this, as she will gain little directly from it (any breakthroughs will likely be much too late for her husband). I’m not aware of her previous position, though she seems to have been conspicuously silent during the first go round of this.
At any rate, the meddling with stem cell research by the current admin is one of the msot infuriating things they have done. It’s pure pandering to the religous right, and it will cost people their lives in the long run. It’s based on a falsehood as well. Stem cells are derived from embyos that are going to be destroyed anyway. There is no talk of creating embryos just for harvesting purposes. If I were only slightly more of a cynical bastard, I would propose keeping a list of lawmakers that have hindered the research the most and then disqualify them and their families from future treatments. You know damn well who will be at the front of the line for early treatments (and even pull strings to get there) if they ever need them.
As to whether she was against it previously, I’m not sure it even matters. Were regulations like the current ones ever considered before? (I don’t think so.)
When she was first lady, there almost certainly was no consideration to limiting stem cell research. The general public has only been aware of stem cell research as an issue for a short time, and I’m positive the research was not as widespread as it is now if it was even going on at all at that time.
People are allowed to change their minds on issues (fighting ignorance and all). I’m glad someone of her republican stature came out on the side of defending stem cell research.
Also, Christopher Reeve, like so many of us, probably didn’t give the issue much thought either way when he was healthy. Sometimes it takes a tragedy to open a person’s eyes. We can’t all be the spokesperson for every valid issue out there.
I don’t claim that she ever spoke out against it, but it’s not too much of a stretch to think that had this been an issue in the '80s, Ron and Nancy would have been vocally against it.
I can see how I’ve put her in a “damned if you do/don’t” situation (if she came out against it I would have been very upset, she comes out for it and I’m still not happy).
I think the difference is, Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox never came out against research for paralyzation and Parkinson’s (or similar things) before they were afflicted. If they had, I would have the same beef with them.
I think that’s a great way to look at it. Still bugs me a little, though.
I was positive that Nancy Reagan supported stem cell research, and made her opinion known, in 2001, when Bush did all that soul searching and came up with that number of 60 lines of stem cells that could be researched using federal funds. (I don’t have a cite whether this decision was handed down to Bush by God Himself, or if Bush decided to pick a number between 1-100.) So thanks, for the cite theR. I believe Bush made his “decision” in August of 2001, when the big stories were stem cell research and shark attacks … those were the days. After 9/11 and the perpetual War On Terror, all of the stem cell debate kind of fell off in favor of more important issues.
I personally don’t have any problem with it at all. As others have said, many people aren’t even aware of a certain cause until it affects them personally. I don’t think Rudy Giuliani would be doing commercials about prostate cancer if he did not have his own personal experience with the big C.
If Mrs. Reagan had come out against stem cell research or remained silent, then I would have low opinion of that kind of behavior. It seems to me that it would be heartless to let a loved one suffer when there are possible therapies that might help them (admittedly, Ronald isn’t likely to benefit personally.) I think it helps to have someone who would traditionally be on the other side, helping out the cause rather than opposing it in this case.
I’m not surprised by Nancy Reagan’s position, nor do I consider it a “reversal.” Nancy was never really “pro-life” (she regarded the Religious Right as little more than a necessary evil).
If you look at the record, whenever Nancy Reagan gave Ronald Reagan advice during his presidency, she pushed him to the left (or, if you prefer, the center).
So, even if she didn’t now have a personal stake, I suspect she’d STILL be in favor of stem cell research, and largely pro-abortion.
Well I think the OP is trying to point out that “lopsided” views need personal suffering in order to reverse them. Stem Cells is controversial more due to wrong religious views about it being manipulation of babies or human lives. When clearly a lot of suffering and loss could be avoided with future research. I personally hate my stupid government for trying to rein in Stem Research in Brazil due to Vatican influence… this is not a US phenomena only.
Cheney and his gay daughter are another example of reversal only with personal “suffering”. Still he didn’t stick it out against Constitutional changes to ban gay marriage.