Okay, it may be a cheap shot to even quote Democratic Underground -- it makes the liberal position look rather bad. But I found some of the comments on this thread interesting.

They are discussing the Korean woman who is 'walking' due to umbilical stem cells, which I discussed previously.

A few posters there understood the implications correctly. That is, they correctly explained to others that (1) Christians have no objection to using umbilical stem cells, and (2) Bush has not banned embryonic stem cell research.

So, it was refreshing to see a few people get this straight, and gives me a bit of hope for the future of the Democratic Party. They weren't even attacked for being "traitors", as I often see happen.

But...

Poster after poster said "See, this proves science trumps religion!" or something along that line. Many seemed completely ignorant of the distinction between embryonic stem cells and other types.

For example, one said: "Anybody who walks after receiving stem cells will surely go to H E double hockey sticks," not only demonstrating ignorance of different stem cells types, but also ignorance of even the most basic facts about the religion being criticised. (Hint: Try to learn something about a religion before criticising it. You will look less stupid.)

Several others expressed the idea this happened in South Korea because Bush had put us behind -- like this:

Stem cell research can make the paralyzed walk. During the campaign, I wanted the Dem's to make the point that Bush was holding the country back and that the Dem's were a party of the future: by not funding stem cell research, we keep the country from making scientific advances and relinquish that progress to other countries...

And this:

If Bush had acted soon enough on stem cell research maybe like four years ago this success could have been an American success.

Err, redirecting our focus into embryonic stem cell research would be directing our focus away from umbilical and adult stem cell research, which was responsible for this innovation. The policy these Democrats suggest would only make this specific discovery happen later, not sooner.

When the ignorance regarding stem cell types was corrected, some blamed the Republicans for trying to confuse people about the different types. Yet again, it was the media, and presentations like the one by Ron Reagan (Jr-ish) at the Democratic National Convention which sought to obscure that Bush only failed to fund research on fetal stem cells.

One fellow lamented that this discovery was "bad news" for the progress of science:

Bad news for fetal stem cell research supporters. Seriously. I bet you will hear the preznit pointing to this and saying "see, I was right, we don't need to be murdering unborn babies to cure people, you don't need fetal stem cells, this umbilicalal stems cellicons work just as gooder."

How twisted is that? John Kerry gives the penultimate promise that the lame will walk if only Bush's policies are overturned. The lame walk anyway, and it's "bad news" for science and accident victims?

I suppose it would be "better" news if this woman were still entirely disabled, and the hope were still distant, instead of having been realized using the "wrong" type of approach! Almost as if he was saying:

"Darn it! This needed to happen by sacrificing an embryo!"

Such people don't care at all about the victim. They're like the Pharisees who were more that angry Jesus healed on the wrong day of the week than they were happy that people had been cured!

Then there were those who said it couldn't have happened, the story was a myth, or hadn't yet been verified by "scientists". The big proof was supposedly that the woman's legs should have been atrophied. Apparently, they're not aware that the muscle tone of paralytics can be maintained or increased by electrical stimulation.

(But what would I, an ignorant Christian, know of such things?)

Finally, "Doohickie" makes a number of points which are worth individual rebuttal:

There is an OT passage where there is a claim that God knew one of the prophets before he was born. This is the passage used to establish that an unborn baby has a soul. But I see it differently: If the Lord knows who will be born and what they will be like, He also knows which embryos will not be born and therefore doesn't necessarily give them souls.

Why not just extend this idea? Perhaps God knows which children will die before age 1 and will not give them souls? Then it would be okay to kill a child younger than one year old. Or why not put the cuttoff at "the age of consent", which is just as murky? Then you could kill any children you wanted -- God would have known about it in advance, and not given them souls.

A modern "liberal" dusts off an argument used to justify both slavery and denying women's rights (see 1849). I wish I could be shocked.

Next tact:

My personal feeling is that an embryo becomes a person when it starts to have sentient thought and/or is viable outside the womb. Obviously, the blastocysts above qualify under neither condition. An eight-month fetus probably satisfies both.

Somewhere in between, at a stage that is difficult if not impossible to pinpoint, the fetus may be considered a "person".

The problem is that the religious right does not think about uncertainties and shades of gray. They want to be absolutely sure that no fetus (in their view, person) is unjustly killed...

[and, later...]

The point is that we don't really know, do we?

The argument is that if we don't know the exact moment at which an embryo becomes a "person" (perhaps by receiving a soul), this discredits the Christian position.

No, actually not. Quite the opposite.

An embryo which may or may not be a person / have a soul (pick your favorite way of looking at it) is like a cardboard box which may or may not have a child sitting inside it.

Is it then moral to pick up a machine gun and blow a thousand holes in the box? What if the odds are 1 in 2 there is a child in there? No? What about 1 in 10? 1 in 100? What if you were going to be severely inconvenienced unless you blew the box to smithereens?

Ah, so if you're not sure if you're killing someone, the moral answer is to take the course of least likely harm. You've made my point nicely, thanks.

Who has trouble with rationality in the face of ambiguity, again?

Of course, this particular gentleman can't decide whether divine fiat or societal acceptance makes a person a person. One minute there is discussion of God giving souls, the next a vague suggestion that it is impossible to pinpoint the moment at which the infant "may be considered" a person.

Of course, if it is we who decide when it "may be considered" a person, then who is to say it must be considered a person at all? And who gets to make that determination?

You give that person absolute power over life and death. Not just physically, but philosophically. Never underestimate the power of philosophical justification. Neither Stalin nor Hitler could have killed the millions they did without it.