things i think

Wired News: Gunning for Stem-Cell Naysayers:
just a couple pull-outs from the article...

"Anyone putting theoretical possible life ahead of actual life is someone who should not be in office."

"I am for life and I'm for the quality of life, but I don't want another 6-year-old to die," Cunningham said, referring to a child with juvenile diabetes. "I opposed the California bill; it went too far. I don't support cloning. But you cannot look a child in the eye when the only chance they have to live is this."

and then there's Bush... with, yes, a semi-valid argument... but if his answer is to affirm life with adoption, why not encourage people to adopt any of the many children already out there in the system? help take them out of bad foster care. but of course, they're already out of the womb, so we can't help or protect them....

"Rather than discard these embryos created during in vitro fertilization, or turn them over for research that destroys them, these families have chosen a life-affirming alternative," Bush said in a statement.

and of course there was also the quick rebut by supporters of the bill that "approximately 400,000 embryos are now languishing in clinics," and i doubt there's 400,000 couples out there looking to adopt embryos... or that even know it's possible.

why we let religious beliefs get in the way of scientific progress (especially in this area where the promise of helping so many is so great) i'll never understand. yes, there needs to be limits on what we do. we can't just "play god" and mix-and-match to do whatever we please, but that's what the scientific code of ethics is there for. that's why there is (and always should be) an open discussion and debate of issues. we shouldn't be forced to fall back on mythologically based beliefs to make our decisions for us.