As several people already pointed out, the article you linked is specifically about taking stem cells from your body and using them. The article at the top of this thread was about using embryonic stem cells.
Putting aside the moral issues, as a scientist, I have huge reservations about the use of embryonic stem cells. Those cells are primed to grow at a fairly high rate, and what keeps them in check and forces them to grow into the various tissues that make up a baby is a poorly defined soup of constantly changing growth regulators. When those cells are removed from the regulatory soup, they have no controls on their growth--and they have a very high resemblence to cancer cells. The defining characteristic of cancer cells is their unregulated growth. In many types of cancer, genes that were turned off during the fetal stage are turned back on. Given these facts, I wouldn't want them injected into my body.
Morally, of course, I am not a person who can be comfortable with having a baby killed to treat my medical condition. It would be better for me to die than to kill an innocent for my benefit.
The problem is that saying NO to any research is wrong.
During the first half of the 20th century, the Japanese conducted especially brutal research on human subjects, involving vivisection, usually without any anesthetic or pain killers. By your stated standard, that kind of research is perfectly acceptible.
I get what you are saying and i think that your taking my statement and equating it to the Japanese is a bit too literal.
I was talking about professional, reasonable, moral and regulated types of research.
Also no where did I ever say I approved of abortion to end my suffering. This is exactly what I am talking about. All of a sudden I am some evil baby killer because I believe that there are useful ways of doing stem cell research.