Would you like to see a shining example of ignorant conservative thinking? I asked the following question:?

Question

Do you think Nancy Reagan is a hero for embracing stem cell research? I think she's a hypocrite. Her and her hubby did all that they could to block advances in that area. They used their influence to block research that could've potentially saved lives, thus causing untold suffering. All of the sudden, Ronnie gets REALLY REALLY sick, and Nancy is all the sudden a pro-choice liberal who is all for stem cell research.
It's like I always say: Put a conservatives back up against the wall, and watch how quickly they embrace liberal ideals.
here is one answer i received from loubean:
It's the same with any celebrity. Do you think Michael J. Fox lobbied for stem cell research and the like BEFORE he had Parkinsons disease? And...he's a liberal! Yipes..didn't mean to out one from your side....and Nancy Reagan never turned into a liberal..don't insult her like that.

The point is, Fox was never against the research..the Reagans were, until they could benefit. Loubean is retarded

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgNEd7d1h8wK7dyhhE.rBiTsy6IX?qid=20060718123101AAoEmrS

Answer 1

Most people are that way. They tend not to think about things rationally until the realize how it can effect them.

Nancy Reagan is far from a "pro-choice" liberal. She is simply a "pro-life" conservative who changed her mind on one issue, which she now does a lot of "talking" about.

Michael J Fox, on the other hand, has always been liberal, but like most people, agrees with the "other side" on a few issues. He started the Michael J Fox Foundation after he was diagnosed, but at least he had the courage to do something, and not just talk about doing something.

Fox knows it is probably too late for him (I've read his book "Lucky Man") but is doing it out of compassion for others. I don't know what Nancy Reagans motivations are.

edit: bereal1
I've done research, obviously more than you. Do you know what the 4 levels of stem cell potency are? (totipotent, pluripotent, multipotent, unipotent) Did you know that 81 Nobel Prize winning scientists as well as every director for the NIH has signed on to this bill? Did you know that, over the next year, 50,000 blastocysts (an embryo that is between 50 to 150 cells) will be destroyed at fertility clinics because they are not needed for invitro-fertilization? Obviously not.

Boy are you confused!!

Answer 2

The question is not about stem cell research, as you've posed it, but the method by which stem cells are derived (fetal tissue or cord blood or other means).

I don't think those who've never had a child or a lose a child before birth, or those who never had a loved one in need of genetic therapy should chime in on this issue. A vote isn't just a vote if you have no stake in it (other than you might have a disease down the road that might be cured by research that might have been developed through the use of stem cells).

The source of stem cells is the issue here. Look, no one wants to die, least of all in a painful, miserable, self-erosive way. Least of all me. If I'm faced with a possibility of a cure that may have resulted from the use of stem cells, I may not be able to sit here and tell you 'No thanks, can't use a cure derived from stem cells'. I think that's the 'revelation' the Reagans and Foxes had experienced, and if you were in the same shoes, you'd likely experience that revelation too.

That being said, people die. Especially when they get old. Our loved ones do, sometimes before they get old. I hate the saying, but can't really refute it, "death is a part of life". It is. And sometimes we ...hang on a second, who am I kidding, we are ALWAYS concerned for today, us, now, this generation, our neighborhood, city, state, region...never for the future, EVER. So it's ok, to most of us, who live and care only about the here and now, to accept the research/cure that was derived from stem cells, derived from discarded embryos/feti.

Before either side gets on a high horse on one pole of the spectrum or the other, each side should look at the pain and suffering caused by the diseases that may be cured/managed through stem cell research. Each side should then look at the actual aborting of a child, what it takes, how it happens, what the child experiences, what the mother, physician, family feels/thinks/lives with after the fact. Each side should absorb the realities across the debating line. Then can we debate. Not before. And as far as passion, listen, passion doesn't belong in science. At all. Not in medicine, not in space, not anywhere that requires conscience first. So before we get 'liberal' or 'conservative' on this issue, let's have COMPASSION for those that will be helped by stem cell research, and those that are HURT by it. And then leave it up to the dispassionate clinicians and scientists to figure out a moral and acceptable way to derive and grow stem cell lines. The 'good' stem cells, as they are called by geneticists, are actually derived from a very, very 'bad' methodology. That needs to be addressed, before we can get passionate about any of this.

Answer 3

Boy are you confused!! What some people are lobbying for is embryonic stem cell research-which has never proved scientifically to be of any use. One time when the infant cells were used it caused massive problems in the recipients. Some of which died because of these cells. Adult stem cell research on the other hand has been used to treat brain injuries,restore sight,shown as a potential cure for sickle cell,reduces the effects of rheumatoid arthritis and the list goes on.What the republicans are against is the disproved embryonic stem cell research which has produced NO results but has cost billions of $$.The democrats keep giving you a load of crap so aborted fetuses will continue to be "harvested"for research which time after time has proved worthless.( Other than of course a lot of them get rich and their pro abortion agenda is given a better light.) So do a little research on your own and stop forming your opinion based only on your political bias.

Answer 4

I think Nancy Reagan is a wonderful old woman who does not cherish the idea of outliving her husband and wants anything that would bring him back. That doesn't make her a hero. I also believe she has absorbed the lies about fetal stem cell research that are continually put out when the truth is that fetal stem cell research has yet to even show promise whereas over 100 therapies and treatments for diseases have been developed using adult stem cells.

Answer 5

Clinton and Carter also blocked the stem cell research. This is not a conservative vs liberal mindset. These people are hypocrites just like everyone who blocks something that would
benefit mankind!!

Answer 6

President Bush is against Federally Funding stem cell research.

Answer 7

Clinton blocked stem cell research too... you need to do your research before you open your trap. BTW, Bush has given $90 million to stem cell research, the only president to do so.

Answer 8

I'm conservative and Catholic and I support stem cell research. I believe that God wants us to discover new ways to make life better.

Answer 9

DONT use the term retarded. Developmentaly and socially disabled is better. And you are right. I love answers like this because it is as you said a shining example. It is also (and thankfully) a dissolving thing in humanity. Just you wait. wonderful amazing things are occuring in humanity and we just may get to see that old, irrelevant relic known as "conserviativism" pass on. YOur point was well made.

Answer 10

I'm conservative, rightly so, and I support stem cell research.