I don't know what your final quote means, but that bit of news is amazing. I can only imagine where the cures can go from here.
 

It means
From science, through difficulties, the stars.
 

I guess K Man, for me, the difference is this...

Abortion already exists as a de facto reality.

It is possible (though unlikely) that we will return to the days where abortion is illegal. But even then, when it was illegal, it still continued.

Stem cell research is based on the material left after an abortion. It is not something which is an incentive to abort. It is not a case of the medical community paying pregnant women to abort, just so they can have some material.

The abortions are already done. The only question is, can we do something positive with what remains, or do we send it to a land-fill in a drum marked "bio-hazzard" ?

I favour the research, every time.

I suppose it might be considered comparable to saying... "the nazi's did plenty of experiments on their prisoners in terms of oxygen deprivation, hypothermia, etc... Is it ethical to take that research, and use it to further medical knowledge?"

This argument has been put forward in the past. Some say that because the material was gained unethically, that we would be morally culpable if we used it. Regardless of the end benefits. Others say, let's use the knowledge to improve lives, and make the sacrifice and pain of the victims worth something.

Again, I'm in the latter camp.
 

Sorry Kamin, I have to agree with MC on this one. I don't think anyone sits back and says, "Gee, maybe I'll have an abortion so that I can donate some stem cells."