Beautiful.

I am so glad that Bush has been consistent in standing against embryonic stem cell research, but what I can't figure out is why so many people are so adamant about developing it, when it is by far not the most promising areas of stem cell research.

If you Google "stem cell research" you get the National Institutes of Health page, and they state that adult cells have been used to treat "leukemia, lymphoma and several inherited blood disorders. The clinical potential of adult stem cells has also been demonstrated in the treatment of other human diseases that include diabetes and advanced kidney cancer." This is under the heading "Have human embryonic stem cells successfully treated any human diseases?" To this question they conveniently avoid answering "no" and give a long list of excuses why they haven't. Mostly they blame it on lack of funding.

Why should we waste our time and money pursuing a less promising route? I am currently painting a dresser for Isaac. When I went to the store the other day did I say, "I bet I could paint this with a broom. I think I'll buy this and try a method that might work." No, instead I just bought a paint brush. I wonder if some doctors and people are just too proud to admit that pro-lifers might just have it right?