Moral Ramifications of Stem Cell Controversy

I cannot thank The Times enough for publishing the story about Nancy Reagan calling for more research with stem cells in order to find a cure for Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease (May 9). This issue is extremely important. For a while, I thought that I was the only Republican who was angry with President Bush’s policy against stem cell research. How could anybody in his or her right mind be opposed to such a great endeavor? What could be the reason for such ignorance?

To be against this important research because of this silly notion that a stem cell is a human being is unthinkable. When the male sperm unites with the female egg, this gamete is about the size of a period at the end of a sentence. It is barely visible to the naked eye. To call this organism a baby or a human being is just plain ignorance. Now I know why Ronald Reagan loves this woman so deeply.

James R. Buch

Redondo Beach

*

Nancy Reagan has joined the ranks of people urging increased funding for stem cell research. We need a cure for the horrible disease that has ravaged the mind of her husband. But serious moral questions still exist over the harvesting of stem cells from human embryos.

Where is the justification for such research? How many human victims of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, heart disease, diabetes, etc., have actually been cured or improved by the use of stem cells?

Some might say that a good end never justifies an evil means, and the destruction of a human embryo is an evil means. But can we be sure that there’s even a good end in sight? Or should stem cell funding be applied instead to new drug research, new surgical techniques, gene therapy, etc.? Sooner or later, someone will have to address this question in detail.

Barbara Schenach

Thomas Schenach

Huntington Beach

*

As great as it is to have Reagan speak up for stem cell research, I ask where was she when her husband was president? We so often see people speak out after something directly affects them. Why can’t these people see the pain in others and act? If more of them had, maybe they could have prevented the cuts her own husband made in the budgets of things such as Alzheimer’s research.

Kelwin Hagen

Los Angeles