The more I talk with pro-choice people on the internet or read pro-choice blogs, the more I realize that many of these pro-choice aren't very informed about the things they are talking about - especially with regards to fetal development. Jill at Third Wave is a perfect example. In her piece on embryonic stem cell research, she asserts, "although I can't concede that an embryo, which is a fertilized egg and not even a fetus, is the moral equivalent to a living, breathing human being."
A human embryo killed for her stem cells is not a fertilized egg. A fertilized egg or zygote is a human being made of one cell. You couldn't really create a pluripotent stem cell line from a single-celled organism whose one cell happens to be totipotent. The embryos that are destroyed for their stem cells are 5-7 days old and are organisms of around 100 cells.
Jill then claims that the argument that "adult stem cells are more successful because they have cured people while embryonic stem cells have not" can be put to rest. Why? She links to this article in the NY Times about a researcher that hopes to use embryonic stem cells to cure paralysis in humans. Somehow she thinks that one researcher hoping to help paralysis in humans with embryonic stem cells is proof enough to dispel the fact that adult stem cells have been much more successful in treating a variety of ailments.
Jill seems to be unfortunately ignorant of the use of olfactory stem cells to help those afflicted with paralysis by doctors in Portugal.