On May 9, 2009 President Obama signed an Executive Order lifting ending an 8½-year ban on federal funding for embryonic stem- cell research paving the way for a significant amount of federal funds to flow to science.  Obama stated that his administration would make "scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology." Much controversy surrounds this debate as embryonic stem-cells from aborted fetuses are used for research and scientific discovery.  Michael Kinsley of Time stated in 2004: "Some stem-cell enthusiasts think that even antiabortion absolutists can support stem-cell research, since it uses surplus embryos that are doomed anyhow. But that logic would justify Nazi experiments on doomed Jews in the concentration camps. If the microscopic dot is a human being with full human rights, the answer is easy: no stem-cell research."  I do not consider myself a stem-cell enthusiast, but I must say that if abortion is legal in certain states, why would stem cell research even be a controversy?   Why should the valuable embryonic stem-cells from aborted fetuses go to waste when they can be used for crucial research? I understand where pro-life supporters come from: they do not support stem-cell research because they do not support abortion.  But the abortion debate should not decide the stem-cell issue.  The fact is that as long as abortion is legal in America, everyone should support stem-cell research.  How can anyone be morally opposed to a young child with juvenille diabetes maybe becoming cured from embryonic stem-cells? The reasoning Mr. Kinsley points to is faulty because nothing good came out of Nazi tests on doomed Jewish people in concentration camps.  They were doing terrible things to people in an already terrible situation.  However, stem cell research is something postitive that comes out of something negative: abortion.  Even the most staunch pro-choice supporters would not argue that abortion is a good thing. But, as long as it is legal, stem cell research should be supported fully.