Have you seen this article at WSJ? It will be interesting to see if there will be new arguments for embryonic stem-cell research. As one student (female) said in response to this topic as raised in my class not too long ago, "It just seems so cool that the stuff from an abortion could be used for something." "The stuff?" I gawped. "She forgot you're a Christian," a boy said as the room erupted in noisy and random discussion. There were other Christians in the room.

We don't want to waste the "stuff"; think of it like recycling, maybe. Certainly it equates with such issues of the day. Or it is old-fashioned, as in waste not, want not.

I wonder what sort of hormonal magic you have to put a woman through for her to donate her eggs. A woman only has so many eggs. To go popping those prematurely, the treatment must be similar to when boosted fertility is desired, which causes multiple conceptions - quadruplets can occur - except that then the "excess" are selectively removed. More stuff? What does that do to a woman's ovaries and future fertility?

I hope Levin is right and the argument is over, settled, done. The NYT article was not absolutely sure. Mr. Pollack says "The discovery, if it holds up, would decisively solve the raw material problem." That "if it holds up" bit gave pause.

Kate, that's one hell of a story. I remember once being in a class that was made up mostly of fervent pro-choicers, and a woman spoke up in favour of abortion, but instead of using the term fetus, she actually used the term "baby." So she was speaking of 1st and 2d trimester abortions of "babies." On the one hand, the pro-choicers were pleased with her comments taking for granted the "right to privacy," on the other, they were unsettled by her acknowledging what they prefer to glide over via euphemisms, that what's being aborted IS a "baby."

And of course we Conservatives in the class couldn't help but observe the tension rising in the room throughout her comments.

Of course. But it is horrible that no one said anything. That means that, now, to kill babies is acceptable. If someone can say "kill babies" in polite discourse, not use the euphemism, then what kind of polite society do we have today? Even to say "stuff" was to avoid considering the humanity of the product of the womb.

I work at a community college. My students are not sophisticated. I got to talking about Pete Singer's bit about an infant not really being "human" until it is two years old, and eligible for a sweet killing prior to that, one day while discussing logical fallacies - either the slippery slope or the argument of the beard or both. My students (not the same class) were all horrified: pro-choice, pro-life. I was so pleased and relieved.

It is telling that science is now dubbed 'Christian'!

And it is telling how the lower folks have more understanding of what life is, backed by science, religion, and common sense, than the supposed elites.

One of the problems I read today was that the reprogramming process creates cells that are more likely to become cancerous. There's still a lot of research to be done and the bottom line is the dollar. Researchers want grants.