to be or not to be . . . i, um, i don't understand the question.

stem cell research is controversial, and there are plenty of valid reasons for why this should be the case. even your humble narrator, who as a rule passes instant, unapologetic, and highly opinionated judgment upon everything that comes before her, can not keep from shifting from one foot to the other about this issue. i feel very strongly, oh so incredibly strongly, that disease happens for a reason and population control and equilibrium are essential in all populations, and scientifically speaking it's detrimental to the species in question and the entire ecosystem for every member of a given population to survive all obstacles, particularly the genetic ones that more or less incapacitate individuals. but i feel so strongly about it precisely because i believe life on this planet is such an astounding, intricate miracle, and all of it needs to be treated as such. i get stuck in this debate, every time, because i want to save everything, including the people, but saving all the people makes it impossible to save all the everything . . .

i can't say that any living thing doesn't deserve the best possible shot. our president seems, to some extent, to disagree.

now, i am not about to initiate another exhausting round of fisticuffs over whether or not an embryo is a person, and please don't you, either, because that's not what i, or most people who are in favor of stem cell research, are arguing about, and it never should be. here are the only two points regarding the right-to-life aspect of this subject that should ever come into play:

1. people with genetic diseases, neurological conditions, and paralyzing injuries who could be aided by stem cell therapies are, by definition, people, and therefore have at least as many rights as amorphous clumps of cells.

2. the cells that scientists are hoping to utilize would come from fertility-clinic stores that would otherwise be disposed of as medical waste.

let's look at that second point again. ready? *scrollscrollscroll*

2. the cells that scientists are hoping to utilize would come from fertility-clinic stores that would otherwise be disposed of as medical waste.

these embryos aren't being fertilized or harvested specifically for research; nobody wants that and nobody would condone that. they aren't being stolen from loving parents, as the donors would be required to consent to the embryos' use in research of any sort. there's no subterfuge or sinister activity, and however lovely bushy's angelic army of snowflakes is, even he would have to admit that there's no way every spare embryo in every clinic in the country is ever going to be adopted. these cells are being held in storage, and then they're being incinerated. that's their entire destiny. if you can't stand the idea of that, rally against fertilization technology; that's the field that's helping create life only to destroy it. well, that and factory farming, but that's a rant for a different day. my thought on this fine summer afternoon is that allowing the embryos to be donated as research lines would provide their five-day lives with some sort of grander purpose, which, really, is what we're all hoping for.

sam brownback, r-ks, says "we do not need to treat humans as raw material." and that's a fine statement, it really is. commendable, even, maybe, in certain contexts. but no one's pushing soylent green. in this context, it sounds like, "your life is not worth more than this not-quite life. in fact, your life is expendable, whereas this one must not be wasted." to the people desperate for some way to help a suffering loved one, and to me, it sounds insanely hateful. these "lives" were begun in hope, but they'll end without having meant anything, unless a lot of stubborn people change their fundamentalist minds and decide to focus on helping some people who actually have a chance of being helped.