I know you know that we differ on this topic.

Even so, I think it's misleading to post a headline about stem cells followed by a quote about "killing the unborn." Cells are not unborn anything. They're cells. They normally get thrown out. The alternative to harvesting stem cells is not growing babies. The alternative is nothing.

I think that sadly, this is an issue that politicians are using to pander to constituents instead of looking at the science and reality of the situation. I don't honestly believe that any of them thinks it destroys life. But it does make a great sound byte to rally the troops.

http://mom-101.blogspot.com

http://coolmompicks.com
We find it, you flaunt it.

Are the embryos in this case not going to be destroyed one way or the other? I thought that was the difference with this bill.. it was intending to use embryos left over from IVF that are going to be destroyed.

ThreeSeven... not just a number anymore

Dana,

You and I usually disagree on politics, but this one I really have to differ on. Don't take it from me, though.
There's a great site called StemPac that has real, moving stories of parents, husbands, wives and children who support stem cell research to save the lives of their loved ones

http://www.stempac.com/stories/

to me, helping people in full swing shows the real value of human life. Not a bunch of cells in a petri dish.

I admit that I have the proverbial dog in the fight. I have a child with a disability that could be affected by research. Please consider the good that could be done. If these embryos are just destroyed what is the point? Destruction, or the potential for curing disease? I know not a simple answer, but nothing in life is simple. But we must do something or other countries will surpass us and then what?

Anyone that reads my blog knows where I stand on the abortion issue as a general rule. They also know that I am not a "pro-lifer" either...but here's the thing. Simply because the abortions are being allowed, does that make it right to profit from it? For me, the larger picture has always been finding a way to make it possible to find a way to make women feel like they don't NEED to have the abortion. Education, better access to birth control, self-esteem classes for young men and women....it's a larger issue.

Saying that the abortions are being done anyway and shouldn't we just do the research because...doesn't that overlook the underlying issue? Because what happens when one day that well dries up? Where do you turn then?

The issue is not whether these embryos are just laying around waiting for the trash heap. If embryonic stem cell research is allowed, research facilities will create thousands, eventually millions, of new embryos to dissect, test and use in experiments. There will be no restrictions.

These debates are important because we need to think about what will happen in the long term.

If we declare embryos as nothing more than cells, at what point in their development will they be considered as something more? If it is ok to experiment on embryos, will it be ok to implant them in a willing subject, develop them a little more and experiment on them in the womb? Would it be ok to introduce mutated genes into them, allow them to develop, and see what happens?

For every succesful scientific breakthrough, there are many, many failed results. WHile this might not be a problem in physics or chemistry, in biology there are serious ethical considerations.

Scientific curiosity, without ethical bounds, can quickly run ahead of our own sanity.

Wheat Among Tares

I encourage all of you to visit Abort73.com. The same "cells" that would be destroyed by research are called embryos. Embryos and fetuses are also known as babies. I hate to break it down in such a manner, but it seems there isn't any other way.

At Abort73.com, watch the first and second videos. Please be aware the second is very graphic.

Many of you will come back to me and say that embryonic stem cell research and abortion are two different things, but really, they both destroy lives. Millions of lives.

Here is a fact from the site:

In all the debate surrounding the topic of stem cell research, it must be remembered that there are different types of stem cells. Adult stem cells and neonatal stem cells (found in the used placenta and umbilical cord) can be obtained without doing the donor any harm. Embryonic stem cells, however, can only be obtained by killing the embryo. This is what makes embryonic stem cell research an ethical question.

The reason people who oppose abortion also oppose embryonic stem cell research is because extracting stem cells from embryos kills them. Embryonic stem cell lines cannot be established apart from dead embryos. Therefore, since embryos (just like fetuses and newborns and infants and adults) are human beings, embryonic stem cell research is unjust and unjustified. It is the killing of one person (actually many persons) in the theoretic attempt to save other people. Is it justifiable to kill one person in order to spare someone else from disease?

If you can watch this video and not bat an eyelash, not change your stance, than I am truly afraid. Afraid for me, for you, for our children, for our world.

Through BlogHer, I've learned to be open and listen to others. I've learned to be an activist; to stand up for what I believe in.

I'm truly grateful for this forum, yet I feel like the outsider when it comes to this topic.

After you've watched the second video, feel free to comment here or e-mail me at thedanafiles [at] hotmail [dot] com as well.

Thank you for your comments here, as well, I do appreciate the responses.

I don't like the word death, it's true. I'd rather these people not die if they don't have to.

I'd rather these embryos not die if they don't have to either.

Dana from The Dana Files.

"As long as you're allowed to kill babies, who cares, right?"

Apart from all the leaps from cells to fetuses to babies that are made here, which I do believe are morally and ethically debatable issues (and have been for centuries) it is this particular leap--from prochoicer to wanton babykiller--where I get completely turned off by this discussion. When one individual, who as far as I can see voices dissent in calm and respectful terms, is basically accused of being a "baby killer" then there is no point in pursuing the topic. At least not in this space.

Come on. How is it possible to have a discussion, even a heated one, when the terms disintegrate like this?

It really is a question of where do you draw the line. Quite a few of you seem to think that "the law" will step in and stop it from getting out of hand, but where does "out of hand" start? Who gets to decide that? When does it become unacceptable? Whose life isn't worth saving? What measures aren't acceptable to take to save one more human life?

Each one of us has to make a choice. We make a choice when we decide whether we're okay with the idea that calling an aborted child a non-life is all right. This is an issue tied directly to abortion. The women who chose to have abortions do so well with in their rights and should not be belittled for doing so, however, extending that into medical research that has the potential to grow into something much more heinous is not something I am comfortable looking away from.

When a woman choses to excersise her right to reproductive freedom, that's one thing. I may not be comfortable with it, but I will respect her privacy. When someone steps into an entirely different moral arena I will step up and speak out. Playing God is not something we should ever get comfortable with, no matter who we think we're saving...and yes, I have given a lot of thought to the "What if it were my children?" end of this debate. I wouldn't want my child saved at the cost of the moral fiber of our society. I'm not comfortable taking that leap. Not now, not ever.

Death. Nobody likes the word. I have a secret though...nobody gets out alive.

It is natural to want to cure the ills of this world and end suffering, but it must not be at the cost of our principles and the value of human life.

Also, while there are many scientists that have altruistic desires to devleop cures, let's not kid ourselves--in the end, it's all about the money that stands to be made by bio-tech companies.

We have all kinds of miraculous drugs and treatments that many never get simply because they can't afford them. If that's the case now, why should we pursue something that has enormous ethical implications only to further the careers and fortunes of bio-tech companies?

Thank you for the differing prespectives on highly charged ethical questions. I think the anwers depends on what your individual moral values are. Its very refreshing to read about differing view points.

For those parents with school aged kids, here's a useful site with online directory and sign up sheet templates for school activities, field trips and fundraising, schoolparent.net. The site is FREE to join and you just need to request an invitation to join.

One of the things I find most interesting about these debates is how fetal life is defined as a baby from the start. Yet, fetal development is scientifically divided into stages specifically because it is not yet a baby. It is convenient to define it that way, but children are not yet developmentally adults and we all agree to recognize that fact. Life changes and develops over time. Now, that has nothing to do with whether or not you think it is wrong to terminate the process of development before it reaches the official stage of what we all can agree is a baby, but it is ridiculous to insist that a zygote is the same capacity as a blastocyst as a baby as a fetus as an embryo.
It is a developmental process and it annoys me that people refuse to recognize that. (Again, you can believe that interrupting that process is murder, just like stopping a kid from becoming an adult is murder - and I'll disagree because I don't think a clump of cells has equal or more rights than a fully formed person - but it is a process.)

Suzanne, BlogHer Contributing Editor - Feminsim & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

Dana, I am genuinely curious as to how you feel it fosters productive debate or understanding - or the openness you say you've gained from Blogher - to label individuals and arguments in the ways that you do here? You say you feel like an outsider, but that's a position you can put yourself in with harsh language and judgment as well.

This is one of the most polarizing topics (possibly the most?) in the history of our society. It is emotionally charged but I would never expect someone who was staunchly pro-life to agree with me no matter how many times I shared my perspective. I would likewise venture to say that no pro-choice individual has ever been swayed by any variation on the phrase "kill babies."

And I might not agree with them (in this case, you) but I can be thankful I live somewhere where I'm free to express my opinion even when it's unpopular. I do understand the other views you present, although they are different than my own. However, when you pigeonhole ME, which you do when you make sweeping statements such as "Liberals...(insert generalization here)" I shut down and stop hearing you. I am a "liberal", among other things, but I can handle the word "death," as much as I still "respect life" according to my own beliefs.

It's up to all of us to determine our own contexts and we all live here together so we have to work those out or simply interact with people who believe exactly as we do. That doesn't work for me. Issues you see as black and white may be very gray to me, and vice versa. So I would be guilty of the same if I made any such comments about Conservatives or "right wingers" or any other pejorative terms I could come up with to reduce individuals to a single term.

I don't want to do that, even when I'm tempted. And as you seem an enthusiastic member of the Blogher team, I felt compelled to ask you the question in my first sentence. Hope you'll share.

Laurie

lauriewrites

Religion and the thought of a god is the worst thing to happen to this world.

Religion hinders the forward progress of mankind.

> Many people have no morals anymore.

So you have to believe in God to have morals?? Interesting.

-Bob
bobafifi.com

usedviolins.com

fluteplayer.net

When a person who is opposed to abortion or stem cell research tells me it's because they "believe destruction of life is immoral and unethical" I like to pretend that person must, like me, be a strict vegetarian. After all, the simple truth is that, in terms of its ability to feel pain and fear, a chicken has more on the ball than an aborted fetus. Yet, it's been my experience that the great majority of "pro life" people aren't willing to extend their concern for life beyond their own species. Yes, life has value -- ALL life. Human and non-human. Adult and unborn.
---
Rebecca Hartong

This is a one minute video of what happens to a frozen embryo instead of being used for medical research. This is a perfect example of how our government is protecting life.

Catherine Morgan
Women 4 Hope and Be The Change You Want To See In Yourself