Debate: Should Bill Clinton speak at President Reagan's Funeral.

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
I haven't kept well informed on this issue. I would think that if Pres. Clinton did speak at the funeral, he would only say good things.

When someone so important dies, isn't that what everyone does?

I personally wander why so many people have gone to see the casket? I kind of feel that sometimes privacy is better for the family. I guess it's hard to keep these things private, though.

I don't doubt that President Clinton would say good things, but I don't see what the point would be of having him speak, unless that same honor was going to go to all of the former Presidents, and the question would still be "Why?".

People have gone to see the casket because the family elected to have it publicly displayed so that people could go pay their respects. They could have foregone the public displays, but they obviously realized that many people would want to pay their final respects by passing the bier.

 

[Galahad]

To "let" someone die goes against all he believes in regarding right to life.

I'll bet not. I'll bet he has a living will. I'll bet his wife does. I'll bet his parents do. I think it is generalizing too much to assume that about his position of end-of-life issues.

I know it's probably a meaningless distinction. There was incredulity in the post that a man that opposes something that could prevent a disease someone died of would be allowed to speak. I would think that if there is going to be outrage and demands for accuracy from others that there should be accuracy in the outrage.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
1 - Thank you. Didn't realize that we had a psychic present that could predict the future of scientific research

Similar to your psychic friends network prediction that there will or would be a cure as a result of SCR? You said yourself it is only a possibility, not a guarantee.

2 - Nobody was aborting babies to do stem cell research. It's a myth. Period. There were no lives being destroyed by it.

This is a matter of opinion.

3 - And ? I'm sure that is quite a comfort to the families of those afflicted with this disease. I would rather be dead than to become what that disease turns people into. Most times, you'll hear people say that "his death came as a relief"...think there might be a reason for that ?

I would not say my father's death was a "relief" -- maybe for him, because I know he did not like what the Alzheimer's was doing to him. The death of a loved one is always a severe loss and devastating to the family left behind. Speaking from experience, when I said that (his death was a relief") it was a feeble attempt to put the best face on a very difficult situation.

 

[want2retire]

It seems the lady (peachgirl) doth protest too much.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Eeyore1954, condolences on the loss of your dad. Nothing political about that.

Thank you.

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by Galahad
What is THAT all about?

It's not a personal attack

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by want2retire
It seems the lady (peachgirl) doth protest too much.

I'll bet not. I'll bet he has a living will. I'll bet his wife does. I'll bet his parents do. I think it is generalizing too much to assume that about his position of end-of-life issues.

You're right, I don't know what his position is, but I'd be very interested to know. I guess I'd find it hard to balance a belief that all life is sacred and the position that it's okay to effectively end one's life based on the quality of it.

 

[Galahad]

I guess I'd find it hard to balance a belief that all life is sacred and the position that it's okay to effectively end one's life based on the quality of it.

It could be a false distinction. Euthanasia is seen by most as being different then withholding extraordinary means and letting nature take its course.

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by peachgirl
A choice, btw, Bush would totally disagree with. To "let" someone die goes against all he believes in regarding right to life.

There is a huge difference between taking active measures to save someone's life and not using heroic measures to prolong one's life unnecessarily

 

[Alice28]

I love the Drudge Report--

I think that if this is true, Clinton is just as narcissistic as I have always thought. Gimme a break- he was mostly president after Reagan had started to slip in the gray area of Alzheimers; he defeated Reagan's VP; he was a member of the opposite party; and I don't think the Reagan family was friendly with the Clinton's.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by peachgirl
... a belief that all life is sacred and the position that it's okay to effectively end one's life based on the quality of it.

This is so very inaccurate. As the person who served as my father's healthcare power of attorney, I authorized all the treatment possible within the specific guidelines of my father's HPOA document and within what I knew he wanted from numerous discussions before Alzheimer's savaged his brain. While striving to provide him the best care possible, I was sensitive to his stated desires. In the end, I respected those desires, even though the result was his passing. I still firmly believe that all life is sacred, but I also firmly believe I must honor my father's desires concerning his life. It's a difficult, painful balance that pits one's own wishes against what one knows a loved one wants.

In most cases, it's not a matter of "effectively ending one's life based on the quality of it."

 

[peachgirl]

Euthanasia is seen by most as being different then withholding extraordinary means and letting nature take its course.

I was referring to not treating illnesses such as pnuemonia or others that could be effectively treated, yet would only prolong a life that the person no longer would consider worth living. I wouldn't consider treating a curable illness extraordinary means and it's certainly not Euthanasia.

I still firmly believe that all life is sacred, but I also firmly believe I must honor my father's desires concerning his life. It's a difficult, painful balance that pits one's own wishes against what one knows a loved one wants.

I wasn't talking about whether or not one should honor a family member's wishes. I was talking about Bush's political stance on the value of life vs what choices he has or hasn't made for himself.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by peachgirl
I wasn't talking about whether or not one should honor a family member's wishes. I was talking about Bush's political stance on the value of life vs what choices he has or hasn't made for himself.

It's always fun to talk about something one knows nothing about.

Originally posted by peachgirl
You're right, I don't know what his position is, but I'd be very interested to know.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
(1)Similar to your psychic friends network prediction that there will or would be a cure as a result of SCR? You said yourself it is only a possibility, not a guarantee. (2)This is a matter of opinion. (3)I would not say my father's death was a "relief" -- maybe for him, because I know he did not like what the Alzheimer's was doing to him. The death of a loved one is always a severe loss and devastating to the family left behind. Speaking from experience, when I said that (his death was a relief") it was a feeble attempt to put the best face on a very difficult situation.

1 - There are no guarantees....but if the research isn't allowed to go on, there IS a guarantee of failure.

2 - No, it's not. These were minor cell clusters, NOTHING that could be referred to as "a baby". It's a FACT, not an opinion.

3 - Please don't preach to me about how devastating it is to lose a loved one...my father died after a year-and-a-half long battle with brain cancer, so please just DON'T do it. As to wether you would say it was a relief or not is completely irrelevant....the Reagan family DID say it, which is what we were referring to anyway.

I didn't even want to get into this stupid conversation

 

[Galahad]

You're right, I don't know what his position is, but I'd be very interested to know.

I wonder though, if you're looking for some sort of "gotcha". This was a popular one with Dan Quayle. He was pro-life but when asked what he would do if his daughter wanted to get an abortion he talked about how he would support her and love her etc. It was as if he was being inconsistent if he didn't gnash and wrawl and disown her.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Galahad
I wonder though, if you're looking for some sort of "gotcha". This was a popular one with Dan Quayle. He was pro-life but when asked what he would do if his daughter wanted to get an abortion he talked about how he would support her and love her etc. It was as if he was being inconsistent if he didn't gnash and wrawl and disown her.

It's an unfortunate part of the political game....I'm pro-choice, but if it were my daughter I'd do everything in my power (short of outright forbidding it) to convince her not to have an abortion. There's no real difference there, in my opinion.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
1 - There are no guarantees....but if the research isn't allowed to go on, there IS a guarantee of failure.

No one is stopping the research. As has been posted, President Bush has simply prohibited FEDERAL FUNDS from being used for the research. If you want to donate private $ to SCR, you are free to do so.

2 - No, it's not. These were minor cell clusters, NOTHING that could be referred to as "a baby". It's a FACT, not an opinion.

I wasn't referring to "it" as a BABY. I refer to "it" as life. JMO.

3 - Please don't preach to me about how devastating it is to lose a loved one...my father died after a year-and-a-half long battle with brain cancer, so please just DON'T do it. As to wether you would say it was a relief or not is completely irrelevant....the Reagan family DID say it, which is what we were referring to anyway.

I didn't even want to get into this stupid conversation

I am sorry for your loss.

As for what the Reagan family said, it seems somewhat petty to dissect it in light of their loss. I was responding based on my own experience with losing a parent who had Alzheimer's. If that is too troubling for you, maybe you need to step away from the thread for awhile.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
No one is stopping the research. As has been posted, President Bush has simply prohibited FEDERAL FUNDS from being used for the research. If you want to donate private $ to SCR, you are free to do so.

So, rather than stopping the research, let's just pull their funding. Yeah, I see the difference I would probably have more respect for them attepting to stop it completely. If it's legitimate enough to continue, then why isn't it legitimate enough to receive public funding ? And does stopping that funding also mean that universities receiving public funds also must stop research ?

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
I wasn't referring to "it" as a BABY. I refer to "it" as life. JMO.

You could walk down the street and step on the same number of cells we're talking about, and you'd never even know it. Call it "life" all you want, it doesn't make it so. Stepping on an ant destroys a more complex creature...lol

Originally posted by Eeyore1954 I am sorry for your loss.
As for what the Reagan family said, it seems somewhat petty to dissect it in light of their loss. I was responding based on my own experience with losing a parent who had Alzheimer's. If that is too troubling for you, maybe you need to step away from the thread for awhile.

I wasn't dissecting what they said...The quote was along the lines of "A Reagan spokesperson said that the death had come as a relief to the family, finally bringing an end to the former president's long suffering" I wasn't dissecting that, just repeating it. (I think "dissecting it" would be along the lines of saying, "that's what they said, but what they meant was......"...But that's just me)

The only thing "troubling" to me in this whole thread has been your comment that you don't think research should be done that could possibly lead to a cure for the disease that killed your father...all for the sake of a few cells that haven't even decided what they're going to be yet, let alone a "life". Sorry, but stepping away from the thread isn't going to make me find that less...well, troubling, to use your word.

Still....I WILL drop this, if you will. We've managed to hijack the thread pretty well at this point

 

[Fizban257]

The official State funeral will be in the Capital Rotunda this evening. Speakers will include the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, and President Pro Tempor of the Senate. That these would be the speakers was a decision made by President Reagan himself some time ago--all Presdients submit their preferences which are kept on file. These would be the speakers regardless of which party held the positions. All living past Presidents were formally invited, but none have been asked to speak. At the last state funeral (for Lyndon Johnson) back in 1973, all those who spoke were Demoscrats. The actual funeral will be held on Friday at the National Cathedral and is closed to the public. If President Clinton is "angry" he has no basis. It is long-standing and accepted protocal that the family has complete say in these matters. That he spoke at President Nixon's funeral is attributable to the fact that he was the seated Presdient at the time.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
No one is stopping the research. As has been posted, President Bush has simply prohibited FEDERAL FUNDS from being used for the research. If you want to donate private $ to SCR, you are free to do so.

To continue the OT trend

Some say that private funding of stem cell research is more likely to push us down an ethically slippery slope. When the government funds such research, it can apply all sorts of conditions on how the money is used (i.e., no cloning). When research is done through corporate funding whatever has the most potential to enhance the bottom line will become the priority.