Snowflake Children

[picchick]

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/11/20/stem.cells.skin/index.html"]CNN-skin cells to stem cells[/url]

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/11/20/stem.cells.skin/index.html"]News in Science[/url]

These are some articles about skin stem cells.

People are going to die no matter what we do to them. Death is a part of life. I think that so many people fear death that they do anything to stay alive. Disease is also a part of life. We do everything in our power to help people with diseases. However, it is not our right to kill another human being.

This debate is lost if you do not believe that a human life begins at conception. We do not have a right to kill an embryo for its stem cells for another life. Yes, I understand that that embryo will not live long but the fact of the matter is that they should not have been fertilized in the first place. Their sole purpose of being fertilized in a petri dish was so that some man/woman could have a child. Well they fertilize several eggs. Then the mother has a choice to selectively terminate a child or two if she has 4 inside her. So now we find justification to kill a frozen embryo because no body wants him/her to save someone's life. Does this make any sense? So, now the embryo is alive. They won't live long so do we kill it to help another person? No. If someone were dying do we kill them so that we can harvest their organs for another? No. Same principle.

I do not understand how we are avoiding the issue...

[dairygirl4u2c]

the science appears stronger in your position than i had realized.
a year ago, someone would have said the same thing, but with much less basis, and i assumed you'd do the same.
so you're not avoiding the issue.
(other than the theoretical idea that you wouldn't allow it even if it meant people die.. my point is that you didn't state that and it appeared you avoiding the issue. but you did in your last post state that you'd rather have that happen, so i may have misinterpreted you.)

anyway props for the article.