Replies

Even more exciting, if considerably more controversial, is the understanding that embryonic cells harbor untapped therapeutic potential. These cells, of course, are stem cells, and they are the progenitors of more specialized cells that make up organs and tissues. By harnessing their generative powers, medical researchers believe, it may one day be possible to repair the damage wrought by injury and disease.! (That prospect suffered a political setback last week when a federal advisory committee recommended that embryos be considered the same as human subjects in clinical trials.)

Notice he eclamation point. Notice also that there is no mention of the possible effect the new technology might have on the abortion debate.

Like Nilsson's work, these images will probably spark controversy. Antiabortion activists may interpret them as evidence that a fetus is a viable human being earlier than generally believed, while pro-choice advocates may argue that the new technology allows doctors to detect serious fetal defects at a stage when abortion is a reasonable option.

They did mention it, but didn't get it right.

1) "antiabortion" activists (why not pro-life?) don't argue about the "viability" of the human being in the womb, we argue that the unborn child IS a human being, whether "viable" (i.e. capable of living outside the womb) or not and therefore needs equal protection under the law.

2) pro-choice advocates don't argue for abortion in order to "terminate" a pregnancy if there are physical defects, they argue to on behalf of killing the unborn for any reason at any time. Abortion is ALWAYS a "reasonable" option for them, otherwise they wouldn't argue so emphatically for partial-birth and other late term abortions!