Hmm... I didn't know that.

Well, I think abortion should always be legal (stepping away from the conservatives a bit, here), but I think women should be able to choice what to do.. as it is their life that is ultimately affected. Our adoption clinics would overflood with children if abortion was made illegal.. b/c Americans (mostly the younger people) will have sex no matter what..

This is very true. And you make an interesting point...

But one thing I've always wondered is why the man doesn't have a say in whether or not the woman gets an abortion. It's his child too.

I am totally with you on this. The problem I generall hear with people who oppose abortion is that we have deprived a human being the right to life. I beg to differ. The fact is that the unborn child has no awareness of life.
Here is a thought - my first born died at birth - something that remains acutely painful to me 17 years later. We went on to have two more children without problems but neither would have existed had our first survived. Who has the greater right to be here?

True.. I suppose it is due to the fact that it's the woman's body, not the man's. The man doesn't have to suffer for 9 months.. Most guys would probably just want the girl to get an abortion anyway (if the two are young, and not married). But I see your point.. I don't know how they could integrate the guy's decision to what the girl wants. What if they view the situation differently? I'm not sure how the law would determine the correct course of action..

I am all for stem cell research but only if the stem cells can be cloned.

I never realised that a blastocyst has to be destroyed in the case of embryonic stem cell research.

My biggest reason for supporting it has always been because it increases the human race's pool of knowledge but I most certainly dont want that knowledge at the expence of potential babies. Not even if those babies are created in a test tube.

The Nazi did similar experiments round about world war two. They tried to figure out how long humans can survive in frozen water by simply throwing a living human into it and recording how long it takes for him to die. Although the information so obtained has saved lives and will probably continue to do so it is wrong and destroying a blastocyst for its stem cell is no better I believe.

I am however all for splicing and otherwise altering human DNA. Even cloning. For example diseases like AIDS can be taken down a notch if we can splice our Inducer-T4 cells( cells which activates the res of the imune system and the only target of the HI virus).

DNA splicing is a wonderful gene therapy technique that will probably be used to cure genetic diseases such as Huntington, Alzheimer's, etc.

Back to stem cell research, I think it is necessary to harvest the embryonic stem cells in order to save other people. Embryonic stem cells may be able to help us create organs from a patient such as hearts, which would be perfectly compatible with the patient.. Many many people can be saved from such scientific advancements.. Basically, either a young embryo is destroyed or an older human being, who actually has a developed brain and can think, dies..

I am afraid that I dont know much about stem cells harvesting. How do they harvest it in adults? And does the adult actully have to die?

And why can't stem cells be cloned? Is there a scientific limit there akin to the speed of light or is it just beyond current human knowledge? Because if stem cells can be cloned then humans can create an unlimited supply without harming blastocysts or adults.

Dont get me wrong. I am all for stem cell research and I know all about how the immune system rejects what it does not consider its own. Not to mention the severe shortage of donnors. But like I said. Killing in order to save life? Many pilots and sailors in world war two had also been saved by the data from the Nazi icy cold water research...

I'd have to say that I'm against the idea of funding for embryonic cells, mostly because of the death requirements to it, but also partially due to RoE weakness.

The claims laden out for 'eventually, the e-cells will do all of this!' are always couched as 'eventually'. The actual results for e-cells so far seem to stem more towards teratoma and neurological disfunction, whereas A-cells are already producing numerous useful results. True, A-cells can't produce the same range of types, but they also appear unable to produce the same risks, which I would consider a good thing.

Key: For those to whom it wasn't completely obvious, 'e-cell' is embryonic cells, and 'A-cell' is adult cells.

just read this:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/05/news...ion=2007060711