Links to think

The following are some links to other sites that I think would really aid in people's understanding of the issue at hand as well as looking at opinion and morals versus research.

Basic information to understand the science behind the issue:

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Stem Cell Information

Time Magazine

Religious Tolerance

Opinions on the ongoing debate:

The White House

Why not adult stem cells?

The President

The Worlds View

Information on Research being done:

University of Wisconsin-Madison

The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics

Small success

Other embyronic stem cells

Recent research has shown that there are four other potential ways of obtaining embryonic stem cells without destroying a human embryo, making these options hopefully less controversial.
The first is called the Parthenote Proposal. This is the idea of creating a parthenote which is an egg, triggered by chemicals to think it has been fertilized and begin dividing and organizing, that develops into an embryo producing embryonic stem cells. Eggs that have not been fertilized can be used. These eggs can easily be found due to the fact that reproductive clinics throw away thousands of them which have failed to fertilize through IVF attempts. The ethical issue is minimized because human parthenotes cannot develop far in a natural state because of the lack of paternal DNA, many researchers consider them embryo-like entities but not embryos.
A second option is the Morula Proposal. This would involved scientists using an embryo that has developed to the 8-cell stage, called a morula, and remove a solo cell which could be coaxed to replicate into an embryonic stem cell line. The now 7-cell embryo can then be implanted into a womb and grow normally.
Next, a third option is an organ transplant proposal. Some scientists believe that just as there are people who are brain dead but have functioning organs, there are embryos that exist that are in essence dead in a similar way. When an embryo is believed to not be able to develop an farther the term "arrested development" is used.
Lastly, is the alternate nuclear transfer (ANT) proposal. ANT has similarities to cloning. Scientists would create an "embryo-like entity" which would not have the developmental gene making it similar to those that would develop into a cancerous tumor. Basically, a developmental gene is turned off in the nucleus being transferred. Then using the cloning process, the altered nucleus is then inserted into an enucleated egg, stimulated to divide, and stem cells can then be harvested.
However, just like traditional embryonic stem cell research, each of these methods have their own technical and ethical problems as well which can be seen at this site.

Life is life....right?

I would really like to take this "human rights" idea one step farther. One commenter, healthy lungs, brought up a great point. What does "human rights" mean? In this context, I am referring to not only the basic human right to live but also the right to choose life or death and the right to speak up. An embryo or a fetus still has the basic human rights, according to Bush, and so it is wrong to abort or destroy and embryo without consent from the "person" with the rights which of course is impossible to get.
However, there is a hole in this idea since there are laws against suicide. If Bush wants to argue that everyone including and embryo has the basic human right to choose life or death then why could an embryo choose but not a living person? Why are there laws against suicide and assisted suicide if a person has basic human rights to a choice? I realize that it is a stretch relating embryonic stem cell research to suicide, but if a human life is a human life that why is it different whether the life is born or unborn when they make the decision to live or die? What do you think? Do the morals stay the say?

When am I old enough?

It is part of the parent/child relationship that the parent must know when it is okay for the child to start eating certain foods or watching certain shows on TV. The infamous line "But when will I be old enough?" is asked everyday by some child around the world when seeking to buy candy at the grocery store or who wants to watch MTV on the new big screen. But the first question a person must answer is when is a baby old enough to gain their basic human rights, the right to live instead of being killed/aborted? Most people today believe the point of no return is somewhere between conception and when the fetus begins to think and feel.
The same issue is also brought up in abortion and even to an extent a parallel lies in homeland security. The subject of abortion is constantly raising the ethical issue of aborting a growing life and compromises have been made as to what point in a pregnancy it is still okay to get an abortion. Homeland security also questions a persons basic human rights and rights innately given to you by the government. For some people these rights are simply taken away if the government has any suspicion without being given a reason, just as an embryo is never given a choice to have its rights taken.
Through all of the events that contributed to the development of stem cells and its controversy, some issues have gone on for years and I have a feeling the question of when life truly starts is going to be one of them.

Help me!

So I need some help from everyone. I have attempted to remain unbiased in my posts, at least presenting the opposite view point to some degree. However, I just do not understand how our president and thousands of Americans can equate the life of a blastocyst to that of a living human being. This is just mind bottling to me, I mean a blastocyst is only a few cells, it does not feel, think, it has not even begun to take the shape of a human. How can this ball of cells have the same basic human rights as a living breathing human with feelings, emotion, love, and pain. How can these cells come before millions of people suffering worldwide from countless diseases. To me the choice would be obvious but I would really like to understand the other point of view better in order to argue my opinions more effectively, or this information may even change my opinions all together.