Stem Cell Research and my Kidney named Jane

I hate the argument proposed by pro-lifers that stem cell research is not moral because it kills life. if people knew the facts, they'd know one of my kidneys is more differentiated and complex than a stem cell. why not just name my kidney?

so i did. i named one of my kidneys Jane. i decided to leave the other unnamed, figuring one of them would go someday - that is assuming stem cell research never goes anywhere.

the counter argument to my argument is always, "stem cells have the potential to become life". well here's the thing, without my kidneys, i wouldn't have life either. so kidneys support life. therefore, my kidney Jane, being more developed than a stem cell, is more supportive of current life than potential life. and lets really look at potential. it's called potential because it's a possibility. but we all know potential doesn't always pan out. that's why it's called potential... as a kid, people would say, "she has great potential". in my teens, such potential just turned to trouble. sure, now i've returned to my supposed potential, but it's not to say it didn't go askew for awhile. in relation, maybe such said stem cell/fetus would go askew and be miscarried. then it's no longer potential - it's just dead - like my islet cells.

so for all you pundits against stem cell research... lets try a little experiment. the next time your kid gets sick and asks you, "will i be okay?" i want you to tell them the truth. say: "no honey, you are not going to be okay because i support life - just not your life." stare a kid in the eye who has just been diagnosed with some chronic or life threatening illness and say, "sorry you're going to die because i believe in the potential of a little cell more than the value of your current life." i guarantee if you go to the pediatric oncology ward of any hospital, you'd drop your pro-life rhetoric. because after a short visit to the dying, you'd realize the true meaning of life. life isn't potential. it isn't the future tense. life is now, it is present. because who's to say what comes tomorrow. who lives, who dies. who's who. more so, life isn't a theory to be argued. it's an existence, albeit a short one.

therefore, not only do we need to reconsider the consequences of saying no to life-saving science. we need to reconsider under what circumstances we go to war. because inevitable, war is also about life. and ironically, most of the pro-lifers out there are pretty pro-war. and that's the really annoying thing... pro-lifers aren't really about all life, but only certain life. some people don't fall into such a category. like the Iraqis for instance. it doesn't matter that they die, as long as we live. sure, not all pro-lifers think this way- but their message is clear. some life matters, while some others' don't.

therefore, are you really willing to risk your child for a cell? if the answer is no, than your response to stem cell research must be yes. because after all, what is fair for one child must be fair for all children.

and if you aren't willing to risk your own offspring to the consequences of war, than don't promote any war, in any place. because inevitably, war is about death, rather than life.